The Memoirs of Captain Carleton

A. W. S^cord

Th^ M^nna'irs of Captain Carlefon \

r THE MEMOIRS OF CAPTAIN CARLETON

ARTHUR WELLESLEY SECORD

A. B. Greenville College, 1916

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

IN ENGLISH

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

1920

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

^ v^hi-

I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY

SUPERVISION BY.

ENTITLED] JlG^zJ-A^ foOJiJlo^tl

BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF^ /AiP-

Head of Department

Recommendation concurred in*

Committee

Final Examination*

*Required for doctor's degree but not for master's umc TABLE OF COITTEIJTS

Chapter I The History of the George Carleton Problem

Chapter II The Composition of the Solebay Episode

Chapter III The Possible Authorship of the Solebay Episode

Bibliography

. ,

Chapter I

THE HISTOEY OF THS GEORGE CAELETOH PROBLEM

On the 16th of May, 1728, (O.S.), there was published, in

London, a volume with the following title page:'^

THE / MEMOIRS / OF M / English Officer, / Who serv'd in the Dutch War in / 1672. to the Peace of Utrecht, in / 1713. / Containing / Several Remark- able TRMSACTIOUS both / by Sea and Land, and in divers Coun- / tries, but chiefly those wherein the Au- / thor was personally concern' d. / Together with / A DESCRIPTIOiJ of many Cities, Towns, and / Countries, in which he resided; their Man- / ners and Customs, as well Religious as Civil, / inter- spersed with many curious OBSERVATIONS / on their Monasteries and IJunneries, more par- / ticularly of the famous one at Mont se rat. / On the BULL-FEASTS, and other publick Diversions; / as also on the Gen- ius of the Spanish People, a- / mongst whom he continued several Years a Prisoner / of War. JIo Part of which has before been made / publick. / By Capt. GEORGE CARLETOH. / LOIIDOi^, Printed for E. Symon, over against the Royal / Exchange, Cornhill. MDCCXXVIII.

Within ten days, a second title page was substituted, and the book

. reissued as "The Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton. . " with a few other minor changes in the title, and in the dedication and the preface. The date of this reissue (which for convenience will be designated the 2nd edition} has long been assum.ed to be

July 26, 1728, on which day an advertisement of it appeared in the 2 "Evening Post". It was, indeed, until 1893, considered the date of

Mr. G.A.Aitken ( Academy , vol.43, 1893, p. 483) discovered the advertisement of The Memoirs of an English Officer. . in the Daily C ourant of May 16, 1728. It is barely possible that the real date of publication was even earlier. 2

In 1859, J.Y., a writer in ^Slotes and Queries (2nd ser. , vol, vii, pp. 150-1), discovered the notice in the Evening Post from Thursday July 25 to Saturday July 27, 17^?8:"Just Publish' d. The Military Mem.oirs of Captain George Carleton..." Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2013

http://archive.org/details/memoirsofcaptainOOseco -2-

the original publication. But it appears now that it is not even

the date of the 2nd edition (or reissue), for identically the

same advertisement was carried in the "Post Boy" (lo. 6063) from

Saturday I.iay 26 to Tuesday i-Iay 28, 1728, approximately nine days

after the 1st edition was placed on sale. A third and a fourth 1 edition appeared In 1741 and 1743, respectively. Then, as in

1728, England was at war with Spain, and the consequent interest

in Spanish affairs seems to have been relied upon to sell the

book.

As the title sug^-ests, these 'Memoirs" purport to recount

the military career of one George Carleton from 1672, when as a young gentleman of about 20 years, he took part as a volunteer under the I>uke of York in the famous naval battle of iiouthwold

Bay, or Solebay, to the close of the Tar of the Spanish Suc-

cession with the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. 'Two years after

Solebay, that is, in 1674, Carleton enlisted unaer the standards

of William of orange in the Lowlands where he fought steadily

till the temporary lull in 1678, his bravery winning him a place

iir. C.E.Doble ( Academy , vol.43, p. 393. bee, also, ...r. Alt- ken's confirmatory note, p. 483) has shown that all four of these editions are from a single impression. In the 1st edition, the dedication (to Sir Spencer Corapton, Baron of ".ilmington) incor- rectly addresses Sir bpencer as 'Spencer Lord Com.pton'* (p. ill). The 2nd edition (the reissue of 1728) corrects that blunder, and omits, from the address 'To the Leader", a postscript in which the reader is desired to overlook some errors in the arrangement of paragraphs (p.vlii). In this edition the type for the whole of pp. i-viii were reset. But in the 3rd and 4th editions (1741 and 1743), only pp. l,ii,vii, and viii were reset - the inner fold being taken from stock in the printer's warehouse. Thus, while the title page was altered in both cases, and the postscript on p. viii omitted, the original error concerning Sir Spencer Compton's title reappears. In all four editions, a single leaf (pp. 117-118) has been removed and another Inserted, as ensign in the regiment of Sir John ienwick. Upon being sent to England with his regiment at the time of the Iiionmouth rebel-

lion ( 1685), uarleton left the service of the i:rince, and accepted a lieutenantcy in a newly raised regiment commanded by Colonel

Tufton, and thus remained in iiingland till after the accession of

William and Mary, when his regiment was sent to Scotland; there some unusual exploits at the capture of i^ethindy Castle won him a captaincy in the regiment of brigadier Tiffin, with which (1692) he returned to fight in the Continental wtrs till the -eace of 1 Hyswick in 1697.

The war being over, Tiffin's regiment was sent to Ireland and from thence to the '"est Indies; carle ton, however, exchanged places with an half-pay captain, and so escaped going to the indies. When the War of the Succession opened, he was recommended by Lord Cutts to the ii«arl of Peterborough, and was appointed to a place on Peterborough's staff, accompanying the expedition to

Spain in 1705. Thus he participated in the famous capture of

Barcelona, and was active in several capacities, especially as engineer, till wounded and taken prisoner at x^enia in 1708. The last third of the "Memoirs" tells of his fortunes as a Spanish prisoner - the customs and character of the people are illustrated with many anecdotes, and many interesting scenes and places are described. 7;ith the close of the war (1713J, he received his freedom, and leisurely travelled back to i^ngland. At this point the account ends.

1 During this time two trips are made to xingland: he is returned with his regiment in 1693 to do duty in the Tower, and in 1696 in connection with the disturbance aroused by the as- sassination plot of that year.

-4-

The book, though very readable, seems to have excited little 1 notice until a singular incident occurred in 1784 which had much

to do with its later history. On Sunday, June 27, 1784, jr. John-

son dined with Sir Joshua P.eynolds, Lord Eliot, and some others. 2 The conversation, as reported by Boswell, turned upon Peter-

borough, who, Johnson said, was one of his favorites; he lamented

that Peterborough was not better known, his character having been mainly ventilated through party pamphlets. Lord liliot mentioned

the "Memoirs of Captain Carleton" as containing the best account

of Peterborough's exploits. "Johnson said he had never heard of the book. Lord Eliot had it at Port ifiliot; but, after a good deal of enquiry, procured a copy in London, and sent it to Johnson, who told Sir Joshua Leynolds that he was going to bed when it came, but was so pleased with it, that he sat up till he had read it through, and found in it such an air of truth, that he could not doubt of its authenticity; adding, with a smile... 'I did not think a young Lord could have mentioned to me a book in the English his- 3 tory that was not known to me.'"

1 liesides the advertisements of the 3rd and 4th eaitions in the various ne-^spapers during 1741 and 1743, I find the former listed in the ''Bibliotheca Smithiana, seu Catalogus Librorum D. Josephi S mithi i Angi i per uognomma AutTT5"rUm jiSpO situs. VeWeTiis

TTTHTRTCLT" . xciv. —2 , p

Boswell, James; Life of Johnson, vol. iv, ( ed. 1887 , pp. 333-4) 3 Three other 18th century notices of the "Memoirs" may be mentioned. (1) In 1786, they were listed as fiction in "A General Catalogue of i^ooks .. .published in London from the year 1700 to

1786. . .Printed for W. Bent. (2) In 1790, James ..^etjt AnJ.re'.^-s quoted one of its anecdotes (concerning the bravery of the Duke " " of York) in his Anecdotes . . .Ancient and Modern (p. 170}, (3) Dr. Thomas Somerville, in his Keign of Queen Anne (1798), rejects the Memoirs as untrustwort^iy.

1 As a probable result of Jr. Johnson's remarks, the "Memoirs" were soon to attract the attention of the great novelist. Sir Wal- ter Scott, whose Interest In the Spanish patriotic outburst a-

galnst iiapoleon's actions at Bayonne , led him, in 1808, to reissue 2 them, with a lively preface and with notes, as authentic history. 3 The following is an extract from Scott's preface:

"...It is obvious that Capt. George Carle ton was one of those men who chuse the path of military life, not from a wish to indulge either indolent or licen- tious habits, but from a feeling of duty... There is a strain of grave manly reflection through the work which speaks the author accustomed to scenes of danger, end familiar with the thoughts of death... His style is plain and soldier-like, without any pretence at ornament; though, in narrt-ting events of importance, its very simplicity gives it occasional dignity. Of the author after deliverance from his Spanish Capti- vity, we know nothing; but can gather from, some passages in his iiemoirs, that it did not correspond with his merits."

jew fortunes, however, were in store for the "Memoirs", ^en

?7alter Wilson published his "Memoirs of the Life and Times of

Daniel Defoe" in 1830, he concluded on superficial evidence, per- 4 haps, that they were none other than a fiction by i^efoe. Their general resemblance to the "Memoirs of a Cavalier", and the simi-

1. Boswell's Life of Johnson was published in 1791. E

Lockhart, J.G. ; The Life of Sir ??alter Scott , vol. ill, (ed. 1902, p. 74). 3 This 1808 edition was published by ArchibsM Constable and CO., iiidlnburgh. The quotation from its preface is taken from an article by John Besley In I'jotes and Queries , 2m ser. , vol. vli, p. 93. 4 Tilson, Talter; Memoirs of the u^lfe and Times of Daniel De- foe, vol. ill, (ed. 1830, pp. 589-691). The sarcasms on~3'uelllng, the moral reflections, the political allusions, and the plain matter-of-fact manner of telling the story, Wilson thought, all suggest Defoe.

;

larlty of some passages to passeg^es in acknowledged works of Defoe,

induced him to say that probably Jefoe has the best title to their

authorship. This entirely novel position was agreed with by Lock-

hart, when, seven years later, he brought out his "Life of Scott";

though impressed with the "inimitable air of truth" of the "Me-

moirs", he was not so sure that Defoe's genius was not responsible 1 for that.

The Defoe tradition received further support from the incor-

poration, by Tegg and Eazlitt, of the "Carleton idemoirs" into an

edition of Defoe's writings published in 1840. Likewise, the 1857

edition of Lowndes' "Bibliographers Manual" lists the "Memoirs" with Defoe's writings, but adds: "This valuable and interesting 2 work... has been likewise attributed to ^ean Swift..." And in

1866, G.L.Craik, in his "History of iinglish Literature and of the

English Language", unouestl oningly attributes the "Memoirs" to De- 3 foe as a work of fiction.

1 Vol. ill ,( ed, 1902, p. 74). "It seems to be now pretty generally believed," adds Lockhart, "that Garleton's Memoirs were among the numberless fabrications of Defoe; but in this case... as in that of his 'Cavalier", he no doubt had before him the rude journal of some officer 'rho had fought and bleo. in the campaigns described with such an Inimitable air of truth." 2

Lowndes, W . T . The Bibliographers ivianual vol.i, (ed. Bohn, ^ 1857, p. 614). 3

Craik, G.L. ; A Compendium History of English Literature and

of the English Language from "the do man Conquest , vol ,ii ,( ed.l866 , pp. 272-3). Craik contrasts the truthful air of i^foe's fiction with Swift's, and mentions that numbers of jefoe's works have been cited as authentic history: Dr. Mead quoted from the Journal of the Plague Year ; the Earl cf Chatham recommended to his friends the Memoirs of a uavalier as the best account of the Civil ^ar; and Dr. Johnson read the Memoirs of Captain carleton without a

suspicion of their being untrue ,

-7-

iieanwhile, Lord Stanhope haa come to the support of ut, John- son and Sir Walter Scott by publishing his account of the "^ar of 1 the Succession, In which he produced, from the papers of his ancestor. General Stanhope, a list of the prisoners taken at i^enia in 1708; in that list is the name "Captain Carltone", which was immediately seized upon as sufficient proof of the authenticity of the "Memoirs", whose account Lord Stanhope proceeded to use freely.

Lord Stanhope's credulity in no way surpassed that of a small group of investigators who discussed the Carleton puzEle in "Notes and Queries" in 1858 and 1859, and continued a scattering fire on 2 the subject up until about 1890. Their most substantial contri- bution was made in 1864, when M.E .S. (evidently a soldier, since he gave Brompton Barracks as his address) found in the records of 3 the army in Ireland the following significant letter;

"Ormonde, These are to pray and require you to pay unto Captain George Carleton.... the Sume of E7 1. 12s. ster. on acco of halfe pay due to him according to the ristablishm'^ .... Given. ... the 20th of ijebruary, 1704 (1705). iidward Southwell To her Ma'^^ Vice-Treasurer of this Kingdom..."

1 Stanhope, Philip Henry, 5th Earl; The History of the War of

Succession in Spain , (ed.l832, app. p .135 ) . The author, who was then known as Viscount Mahon, based his account mainly on papers left by his ancestor, General James, 1st Earl Stanhope. 2

, Beta ( Eotes and Queries , 2nd ser. vol. vi , pp. 392-394) , finding the contents "indisputably such as no professional narrator could v^ell conceive, much less fabricate," and being unable to find a possible George Carleton to father them on, was of the o- pinlon that a certain historical Lancelot Carleton (d.l730) who had been a military chaplain and -.vho had served in Spain, had written the Memoirs . 3 ^otevS and Queries . 3rd ser., vol. vi , p. 375. The letter to Ormonde was found in a folio book entitled: "Warrants relative to the Army in Ireland, 1703-1705," additional manuscripts 9765, fol. 119.

, "

-8-

Here -vas not only an evident reference to the Carleton of the "Mem-

cits",, but one tending to confirm the account given in those mem-

oitsv

Juring the decade from 1860 to 1870, Captain Percival Carle-

ton was carrying on an extensive Investigation preparatory to writ-

ing his "Memorials of the Carletons", and incidentally contributing

considerably to our knowledge of the historical oaptain oarleton. i

though Captain :erciv«l (jarleton was evidently not a scholar, he was an industrious investigator, and identified Captain George

Carleton beyond the peradventure of a doubt, as the following quo- 1 tation from his "Memorials" will show:

"In the preface to the Memoirs ( Carleton' s) the author describes himself as being born at Ewelme, oxfordshire, and as a great nephew of the j.ord i^udley Carle- ton. He further intimates. .. that he had a company in Tiffin's Eegiment, and that after the reace of lyswick, he was placed on half-pay .. .How a reference to the gen- ealogy of the Oxfordshire Carletons will show that the Lord iJudley Carleton had three nephews: Sir John, whose only son died in 1650... Sir i/udley, who left four daugh- ters; and George, of iiwelme, whose children were under age in 1654... as Captain George carleton, according to his own account, was born in 1652, the presumption is that he was a son of the latter. At the jjublin Custom

Kouse , there is a copy of the Royal warrant, dated 28th of uctober, 1700, placing 'Captain George Carleton of Tiffin's Regiment,' on half-pay; and a reference to Bethara's 'List of Wills' will show that administration of the goods and effects of 'Captain George Carleton, of Tiffin's Regiment', was granted at Jublin, 3rd Sept., 1730, to a Margaret Tvestmoreland.

This last is a curious instance of the inaccuracy of Captain Per- 2 cival Carleton; for colonel Arthur Parnell has shown that the ad-

ministration of the deceased Carleton' s goods was granted to a cer-

1 Carleton, Captain Percival Augustus; Memorials of the Carle- tons, p. viii. Z English Historical Review , January, 1891, p. 109.

-9-

tain Mary Toms, of St. Margaret's Parish, "JiTestminister.

Scanty and inaccurate as this may be, it remains the closest

identification of Captain Greorge Carleton with his ancestry,

though Colonel r'arnell is not sure that it is correct. At any rate, the citation of the warrant placing Carleton on half-pay is,

like the letter to the xmke of Ormond , quoted supra , in strict ac cord with the "Memoirs"; while the account of Carleton' s will, with the corrections which Colonel Parnell has made, is a valuable addition to our slender store of fact concerning the soldier's life. Beyond doubt, Carleton was a flesh and blood figure, and no mere figment of Je foe's imagination.

With all this evidence, it is small wonder that we find 7il- liam Lee, in his edition of iJefoe (1869), rejecting the "Memoirs"; he declared himself unable to find any evidence, internal or external, to justify attributing them to i^efoe; and that he found

Carleton to have been a real person and the writer of his own memoirs. With this decision, Mr. James Crossley, an eminent 19th 1 century authority on i^efoe, agreed.

In line with this, two of the three histories of the reign of Queen Anne appearing between 1872 and 1880, regarded the "Mem- oirs" as undoubtedly genuine. Lord Stanhope's account was pub- 8 lished in 187?^, and he relied as freely on them as he had done forty years earlier in his history of the War of Succession. But

Lord Stanhope was not more certain of the matter than was John

Kill Burton whose three volume history appeared in 1880. In-

1 Lee, William; Janiel ^efoe , vol.i, pp. 438,9, 2 Stanhope, r.H.,6th i.arl; History of ii^ngland comprising the reign of Queen Anne, vol. i, p. 217, note 7.

-10-

fluenced no doubt by the opinion of his fellow-countryman. Sir

Walter iScott, liurton dismissed the case for i>efoe in these sarcas- 1 tic terms: "The reasons for i^efoe's authorship are a curious in-

stance of illogicality in the conditions. The work is so exactly

what a plain intelligent man, who had seen and taken part in all

that he narrates, would have made it, that it must be the work of

the cleverest imitators." Jr. Johnson's estimate was nearer the

truth, thought Burton, who continues:

"It was only when the ample statements from the seat of war, stored in the riritish Museum, became a- vailable through the Catalogue of Additional iiianu- ecripts, that the accuracy of uarleton's story could be subjected to a conclusive test. The result is in the first place to clear off even the possibility of i>efoe's authorship, because he could not have discovered the fundamental facts of the narrative without access to documents jealously guardel in the private repositories of those who held them as confidential."

The argument resolves itself to this: that the events nar-

rated are of such a nature that Jefoe could not have had access to

them, and that any inventions of the imagination would have been

instantly denounced. Burton has, therefore, accepted the "Memoirs"

as the statement of an officer and a gentleman endowed with the

faculty of accurate and animated narration, and throughout worthy 2 of reliance accordingly.

Burton, J.H.; leign of Queen Anne , vol.il, p.l73ff. 2 The third history of Anne's reign referred to, that of Wyon, makes the curious blunder of relying on the history of Lord Stanhope while denying the genuineness of the "CflrletoTiWifimni th " . Thus he is led into the amusing error of recounting the whole romantic episode of Peterborough and the jjuchess of j opli at the capture of Barcelona, which (so far as i can learn) has no other

foundation than the Oarleton Memoirs . It is scarcely necessary to add that other portions of his histoiy are vitiated through his injudicious confidence in the reliability of Lord Stanhope's work.

, , ,

-11-

Burton' s arguments were all summed up in Mr. Ormsby's article

on Carleton in the "Dictionary of national Biography" (1887); for

Leslie Stephen had. become convinced of the authenticity of the 1 "Memoirs" and had enrolled Carleton among the worthies of the

realm. The best proof of the merits of the "Memoirs, thought Mr.

Ormsby, are the efforts to claim them as fiction; but what mainly

entitles its author to a place in the "Dictionary" is its im-

portance as a piece of historical evidence bearing on a period for

which trustworthy information is scarce.

And thus the matter stood till Colonel Arthur Parnell pub-

lished his "History of the TTar of the Succession in Spain" in

1868. Previously to that time, as he has pointed out, practically

every 19th century history of the Peninsular campaigns used the 3 "Memoirs of Carleton" as authentic - that was the easy procedure with scarcity of other materials and the opinions of Dr. Johnson

and Sir Walter Scott favoring it. On the other hand, practically

Stephen, Sir Leslie; Hours in a Library , vol.i, (ed. 1S07, p. 4). Sir Leslie regarded it a tribute to Defoe that the Memoirs should ever have been attributed to him. 2

English Historica l Eeview , vol. vi (1891), p. 106. 3 Parnell cites the following list of historians and other writers Trho have been misled by the Carle t on Memoirs : Coxe , Marl-

borough (1813), and Bourbon Kings { 1818 ) ; 77atts , Bibliography ,

( 1624) ; Stanhope, War of Success! on and Keign of Queen Anne ; Gleig,

Eminent Commanders (1852); Dunham, Spain ( 1833TT Macaulay, Essay on

Stanhope's Tar in Spain , (1833); Dunlop, Spain (1834); Cannon, OfTT-

cial Pecords ( 1837-50) ; Wallace, History of England (1839); Warbur-

ton, Peterborough (1853); Cust, Annals ( 1858 ); Kuntzel Prince

George (1859); Lee, Defoe ( 1869 ) ;Hamilton , Grenadier Guards (1874); Hoorden Spanlsche Erbfolgekrieg (1874);^yon, Queen Anne (1876);

Dyer, Modern Europe (1877); Ilorris, Age of Anne ( 1877 ) ; ^Tilson,

Ber/rick (1683); Uapier Johnson (1885); F.ussell, Peterborough ,

( 1887 J ; Henty, Bravest of the Brave ; and Ormsby, article on Carle- in the Dictionary of national Biography .

-12- every 19th century collection of Defoe's works included these

"Memoirs". And strangely enough, both sides appeared to be per-

fectly satisfied with this contradictory state of affairs; that the truth of the matter might be found by investigation never seems to ht.ve occurred to either side, though during the whole of the century the British Museum was placing great quantities of unsearched manuscripts at the convenience of investigators, and countless privately owned papers and letters were being pub- 1 lished.

With boundless industry. Colonel Parnell had searched great stores of records, both on the continent and in England and Ire- land, and had left no stone unturned to get at the facts in the case. The main problem to be solved was in connection with that erratic hero of Lord Macaulay, the Sari of Peterborough, who commanded the expedition to Spain which effected the famous capture of i'ort Montjuich and of Barcelona. In the face of persistent rumors that the victory was rather in spite of his lordship than because of him, Peterborough had Dr. John Freind issue an account 2 of the campaign, which, however, presented no evidence other than

Peterborough's unsupported word. So uncertain are the facts concerning his whole career that he seems more like a hero of legend than an historical personage. To the character of Peterborough,

1 "That men of the calibre of Lord Stanhope and Lord ilacaulay ...should have deliberately abstained from making proper investi- gations into a matter on which they so unhesitatingly published their ideas is, I think, one of the curiosities of modern English literature." Parnell, Arthur; Defoe and the i^emoirs of Captain

Carleton , Athenaeum , 2 March, 1899, pp. 279, 280. 2

Account of the Earl of Peterborough' s Conduct in Spain , 1706.

-13-

Colonel Parnell deals a severe blow. !!!?illiam O'Connor Morris wrote that, though too severe on him, Parnell had exploded the undeserv- ed estimate of Peterborough, and had done justice to the great 1 Huguenot, Galway,

Incidentally, some things had been done for the "Carleton

Memoirs". Previous students of the problem believed that the authenticity of the "Memoirs" depended upon whether Carleton was a real or a fictitious person; and that accounts for their compla- cency on finding a historical Captain George Carleton whose career in some points at least paralleled the account given in the

"Memoirs". Here, said they, is a flesh and blood man perfectly capable of writing his own memoirs: why mention Jefoe in connec- 2 tion with what is obviously a true and genuine record? But Colo- nel Parnell, while he does vastly more toward Identifying Carle- ton,- finding indeed that he was a captain in Tiffin's regiment; that he was retired on half-pay in 1700; that he went to Spain with Peterborough in 1706; that he was captured at x^enia in 1708; and that he was a prisoner in Spain to the end of the war in

1713, all very much as the "Memoirs" set forth,- at the same time 3 shows the "Memoirs" to be largely a collection of plagiarisms.

Academy , May 12, 1888, p. 319. 2

"Defoe already has undying fame," said lir. Markland ( Hote a and Queries , 2nd ser. ,vol.vii ,pp.ll ,12) ; "why deprive a gallant officer the honor of a faithful narrative of his professional life?"

Similarly Mr. Besley had written ( Notes and Queries , 2nd : ser . .vol .vii ,p.93) "One need... feel no compunction in attempting to reinstate a fine old soldier in his rights, even though the are- sult may be to withdraw one of his aliases from the True Born Englishman. 3

Knglish Historical Pevlew , vol. vi (1891), p.97ff.

-14-

In the earlier part of the book, some thirty pages covering the period from 1674, when Carle ton is said to have Joined the

Prince of Orange's guards, to the battle of St. Dennis in 1678, the thread of the story and many of the incidents related Colonel

Parnell shows to have been taken from the "Memoirs" of Sir William

Temple. Hot only are the two accounts similar in content, but here and there are phrases and sometimes whole sentences and paragraphs showing unmi stakeably that the earlier book is the source of the later. 71th minor exceptions, Parnell finds no further plagiarisms till we come to the account of the war in Spain, in which part the story is manifestly taken from the "Account" of

Dt, Freind mentioned supra . The pl&giarlsms here (the most numerous of all thinks Parnell) are too evident to be questioned.

In the remaining portion (about one third of the whole), dealing with the five years imprisonment in Spain, and the return to England, the borrowings are from the "Letters" of the Countess 1 d'Aulnoy, and from the "Miscellanea" of Temple. Many of the descriptions are amplified from d'Aulnoy. That Countess had

travelled from France into Spain , describing some half-dozen towns which she had passed through; Caileton, on his way to Eng-

land, journeyed from Spain into France , visiting identically the same half-d02en towns and in precisely the reverse order. The

only borrowing from Temple's "Miscellanea" is a somewhat doubtful i one in reference to Don Quixote's having laughed away Spanish chivalry.

La idothe, liarie Catherine, Comtesse d'Aulnoy; ' The Ingenious and Jiverting Letters of the Lady -'s Travels into Spain... ^ End eTT, 1692.

-16-

Having demonstrated the presence of fictitious passages in

the "Memoirs", Colonel Parnell gave a decidedly new turn to the

matter by arguing ably and at great length that the real author was neither carle ton nor i^efoe, but no less a person than ^ean 1 Swift. A number of things make this conclusion plausible - in-

deed highly probable - at first sight, 'xhe author was beyond

doubt a warm admirer and champion of Peterborough, and based his account of that nobleman' s career upon the Account*' compiled

from Peterborough's own papers by jjreind. Swift and Freind were

both staunch friends of 1 eterborough. To this should be added

the facts that, in 1728, both Carleton, a needy veteran of 76, and Swift were living in Dublin; that Swift is known in one other

instance to have aided such another old soldier to publish his E memoirs; that in April, 1727, Swift came to London on six months

leave; and that in June, 1728, he retired to a country place, con-

ceivably to devote himself to composition. The supposition is

that, having picked up some notes or jottings from his needy fellow- townsman. Swift carried them to Peterborough in London, who added further material from his own papers, and, in the summer of 1728, with the aid of the works of ireind, Temple, d'Aul- noy, and others, framed the narrative which has for nearly two centuries baffled historians.

Colonel Parnell, moreover, finds in the "Memoirs'" a satiric tone; a general stylistic resemblance to "Gulliver's Travels" and other authentic works of Swift; a sneering attitude toward

English Historical heview , vol. vi (1891;', p. 97ff. 2 The Memoirs of Captain Creichton, 1731. Parnell points out that the Creichtons and the Irish Carletons were closely related.

-16-

thd Irish ; and a classical tone beyond the "illiterate" Defoe, all suggestive of Swift. Parnell further insists that there are some eighteen generals and higher officers either purposely maligned or purposely ignored in the "Memoirs", and that against each of these

Swift cherished bitter hatred; and adds that Swift, having edited the works of his kinsman. Temple, would therefore be more likely than another to make use of them.

Against the authorship of ;jefoe, Parnell pleads his illiteracy, his sturdy manly honesty, his sincere and earnest religious views, and the absence of any known connection between Jefoe and

Peterborough, jefoe and Carle ton, or Jefoe and many of those maligned in the "Memoirs". More significant is Parnell' s attempt

to prove that Carleton himself could not have written the "Mem*-i . oirs", Though he does not deny that tarleton may have furnished some of the material - on the contrary, he is convinced of it - he is certain that parts of the book could not have been written by any military man. He detects a satirizing tone toward military life and military men - criticisms of duelling and drinking (Carle-

ton was cashiered for duelling) , and theological and religious

discussions that place Carleton hors de combat . It seems to Par- nell that, of all men, a soldier would be the least likely to forge an account of his career. Furthermore, there is an interest manifested throughout in politics and in the general conduct of affairs not to be looked for from a subordinate officer. The

have omission of certain events in which Carleton must participat- _ ed, and the narration of others in which he could not have participated, render it improbable, in _arnell's opinion, that he had any hand in shaping the final form of the "Memoirs", Strangest of all,

-17- why should Carleton, an old man with one foot in the grave, lend himself to slandering the iSarl of Galway, who at several critical points in Carleton' s career proved his benefactor?

Colonel Parnell is, however, so interested in proving the

"Memoirs" a fiction composed by Swift that his arguments must be accepted with caution, determined to reconcile the praise of Lord

Cutts with Swift's well-known hatred of him, Parnell distorts the plain statement of the "Memoirs" and soueezes from it an ironical meaning. The same proceaure is necessary in the case of Tilliam

III. Other weaknesses appear in Parnell' s arguments, -.hy should

Carleton' s advanced age prevent his having composed the slanderous book? Ho one would argue Defoe's age as a reason for his not being the author; and yet in 1728 Defoe was quite as near the grave as Carleton. Many of the events of the earlier portion of Carle- ton' s career were, furthermore, unknown to Parnell, who assumed, because he could not verify them, that the statements in the "Mem- oirs" concerning that period were probably untrue. A great lack of accurate knowledge of Defoe and of his works is manifest in all

Parnell' s treatment; anyone who speaks of the "sturdy manly honesty" or of the illiteracy of Defoe is scarcely qualified to give an opinion on what Defoe may or may not have written.

Two years elapsed before i.ir. C.E.Doble took up the challenge given by Colonel Parnell, and came to the rescue of the Defoe fac- tion. With a wide and accurate knowledge of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, a remarkable acquaintance with the life and writings of Defoe, and excellent literary judgment, Mr. Doble was peculiarly qualified to speak in the matter. For years he had

-18-

been connected with the Clarendon jr^ress at Oxford, and had spent his leisure on the history anl literature of the later Stuarts.^

Accepting Colonel farnell's account of Carleton's life and of E the plagiarisms as correct, lir. Doble concerns himself only with

the contention that Swift was the author. He points out that

Stella died in January, 1728, and that the "Memoirs" were publish- soon afterward, making highly improbable for Swift to have undertaken such a task at that time. There is an even stronger obstacle to xarnell's supposition that wJien Swift retired to the country In the summer of 17£8 he was occupied with composing the "Memoirs", and that is that the **f?emoirs" were on the market before the summer of 17 28. The suggestion that the "Memoirs" were written with the knowledge and aid of Peterborough is disposed of by ouoting a letter from Pope to Aaron Hill, written in 1731, which shows conclusively that Pope, another very close friena of Peterborough, knew absolutely nothing of this supposed attempt to make use of

re terbo rough ' s papers to rescue him from the oblivion into which 3 he had fallen.

Mr. Doble then proceeds to examine the substance of the "Mem- oirs" minutely, and, from his wide intimacy with the multifarious

^See the notice of his death in the Athenaeum , 19 14 ,p . 332 2

Doble, C.E. ; The liaemoirs of Captain Carle ton ; Swi ft or Je foe ?

Academy , vol.43 (1893), pp. 393, 438, 461, and 482. 3 An extract of Pope's letter (dated j'ipril 4, 1731) follows: "I happen to know many particulars relating to the iilarl of Peter- borough' s conduct, and just glory in that scene you draw so well; but no man ought... to attempt what you aim at... except hinself. I have long pressed him to put together many papers lying by him, to to that end. un this late occasion he told me you had formerly endeavored the same, and it comes into my mind that on many of those papers 1 have seen an endorsement, A.E. , which 1 fancy might be those you overlooked." Elwin and Courthcpe; The ^orks of Alex - ander Pope , vol. X, (ed.l886, p. 24).

s -

-19- wri tings of ^efoe, develops a strong case for his authorship. The change in the title; the errors and the carlessness in the dedica- 1 tion; the similarity of the preface to that of the "Memoirs of a

Cavalier'"; the character of the classical allusions and quotations

(which, Mr. ^oble says, are frequently "according to zeal rather than knowledge"); the obvious familiarity of the author with both

Spain and London; the anecdotes; the vocabulary; the moralizing on duelling and on predestination, and the complacent protestantism; the trite mannerisms; the frequent use of grenades by the hero; '"he praise of Sir fdchard Steele, XiOrd outts, William III, and others, all these, illustrated with an amazing accumulation of details, point strongly to jjefoe.

The only attention lir, jJoble pays to the sources of the "Mem- oirs" is in pointing out that Defoe had previously used two or more their anecdotes. Otherwise, his examination is as complete as it could well be; and he concludes: "That he (Carleton) was simply a cloak for i^efoe 1 have no doubt; while 1 have equally little doubt that x>efoe, after his manner worked up carleton' 2 anecdotes and reminiscences into literary shape."

At this point, two important additions to the facts of Carle- ton' 8 life should be mentioned. One of them had been made by Mr.

Doble as early as 1089. ^.o previous investigator had discovered

1 In this connection, nr. £/oble points out that Swift would have been very unlikely to dedicate a book to Sir Spencer Compton at that time. Sir Spencer had just failed in his attempt to form a ministry, and Valpole's position was made stronger than ever. Indeed, Swift had written in Bebruary of 17E8, "Aa to I.ichmond Lodge and Iv^arket Hill, they are abandoned as much as Sir Spencer

Compton." (Scott's Swift , xvii, ed.l814, p.E06). 2 Academy, vol. 43 (1893), p. 483.

-EO- any trace of the real Carleton earlier than 1697, in which year

Parnell had found that he was a captain in Tiffin's regiment as the "Memoirs" claim. But for the preceding quarter of a century 1 nothing was actually known of Carleton until ur. x^ohle discovered two letters written in his interest in the years 1684 and 1685, respectively, by _;r, John Covel, chaplain to the irincess of Orange

(1681-5). Dr. Covel had evidently been requested by some one of importance to use his influence to secure a captaincy for Carleton, and the letters were written in compliance therewith. In the second of these was an enclosure which reads:

"Mr. Carlton hath been tenn yeares in the service of the rrince, 7 yeares as a voluntier, 3 yeares an Ensigne in Hen Bellasis his regiment. He was at the Battel of Seneife, and the Seidge of Mastricht, where he was wounded, 'rhe Captaines place void is

one that is cashierd, his nar.e is not knowne , but it is thought to be in h^^ Hen. Bellasis his regiment. Ke hath been at Sea w^^ Sdw. Spragg."

Here is a useful sketch of Carleton' s life from 1672, at which time the "Memoirs" open, to 1685; and, excepting slight discrepancies in the matter of dates, concerning which the "Memoirs" are usually rather vague, it disagrees with the "Memoirs" only in giving Sir

Henry Bellasis' regiment as that in which carleton was ensign rather than Sir John ienwick's.

According to the "Memoirs", Carleton came to iingland with his regiment at the time of the Monmouth rebellion in 1686, shortly Dr.

Covel had written the second of the above mentioned letters. i?rom then till after the i-evolution of 1688-9 he is said to have remain-

Academy , 6 July, 1889, p. 10. ^he letters are from the Tanner Collection (Mss. 31.61) in the Bodleian Library. Both were written from Honslaerdike ; one was to Bishop Bancroft, and the other to jr. H. Paman.

-21-

ed in iingland, during which time he quitted the service of the

Prince of Orange, secured a lieutenantcy in Colonel ^ufton' s regi-

ment, and about 1690 gained a captaincy in Tiffin's.

Though unable to locate a Lieutenant George Carleton in Tuf-?

ton's regiment, ?arnell did, however, find a Villar '^arleton who

had been made an ensign within a year or ao from the date suggested

in the "Memoirs". And this Villar Carleton he supposed to have

been a relative of Greorge Carleton and to have furnished material

for the ensuing portion of the "Memoirs". But, in 1894, Mr.

Charles Dalton, who had a few years previously published an array 1 register, produced copies of commissions showing that not only were George Carleton and Villar Carleton the same individual, but,

also, that the account of this period of George Carleton' s career 2 as given in the "Memoirs" is substantially true. According to

these commissions, Villar Carleton was made ensign January 1, 3 1687-8. On March 1, 1689-90, Carleton was appointed lieutenant

to I!a.jor Tankred in f:ir James Les"ie*s (late "^ufton's] regiment of

foot, trhis, yalton thought, was doubtless Viller CarTeton promoted

!n the ordinary course. The next commission is dated two years later: "Commission to Villiers Carleton, esq,, to be Capt. of the

company of which javid I.indes was late Capt. in the regiment of

foot commanded by Zacharia Tiffin, dated at 77hitehall, 21 March,

English Army Lists and Commission 1 egisters , London, 1892. 2

Academy , vol. 46 (1894), p. 104, 3

The English Army List and Commissi on Regi sters ( vol.ii ,p.l47) gives the name as 'Oilier' instead of 'Viller^,

-22- 1 1691{£)." To cap it all, a manuscript army list for 1694 contains, in a list of Colonel Tiffin's regiment, the name, "Captain George

Villars Carleton, March 21, 1691(2)." And Dalton, apparently irri- tated by the attempts of Colonel Parnell and Mr. Doble to prove the

**Memoir3" fictitious, concludes in triumph, "On the principle that the devil is not so black as he has been painted, I believe that

Captain George Villlers Carleton was not such a consumm.ate liar as has been represented. " Jo matter how unwarranted i/ir. Dalton may be in believing the "Memoirs" genuine, there Is n* tioubt that he has supplied the last piece of evidence needed to connect the Mr.

Carleton who had "been at sea with S Edw. Spragg" and "tenn yeares in the service of the _rince", with the Captain George

Carleton of Tiffin's who was cashiered in 1700 for duelling, and who accompanied Peterborough to Spain in 1705.

L'lnce the exposures cf Colonel Parnell, historians have on the whole taken a conservative attitude toward the "Memoirs". William 2 Stebbing, in his "Peterborough", seems inclined to believe that they may be genuine, though he speaks of them as one of the mys- teries of literature. "Probably'," he says, "the share of the edi- tor who put the materials into shape w£.s rather less, and the share of the old officer who lent his name rather more than it has become of late the fashion to concede." Furthermore, he finds the

"Memoirs" too free from vituperation for Swift and too poorly done for i)efoe. Professedly following Stebbing, the Honorable J.^. For-

1 Add. MS. 17,918. 2

Peterborough , English i^en of Action Series, p. 55.

, V

-23- 1 tescue goes much further and makes use of some episodes from the 2 "Carleton Memoirs".

^ile careful historians have been rejecting the "Memoirs" as unauthentic, writers on jjefoe, on the other hand, have been diffi- dent about attributing them to him. Thomas T7right, in his "Life of

Defoe" (1894), following the list compiled by TJilliam Lee, omits the "Memoirs" from among Jefoe's works; and, likewise, the much greater scholar, Mr, Aitken, omits them from his edition of Jefoe's narratives brought out in 1895, feeling that "the only safe course is to... reject everything which aoes not bear convincing proof of 3 4 genuineness." wlr. ii.A. Baker has gone farther still, and says they are "probably authentic memoirs." A definite assertion of their authenticity has been made by Hichael Harrington, who, apparently influenced by Dalton, quoted a passage relating to the hero of Killiecrankie from them in his beautifully printed "Grahame of 5 Clave rhouse" (1911).

A History of the British Army , London: 1899. 2

The following recent histories have either ignored the Carle r^-- ton iide moirs entirely, or have mentioned as untrustworthy:

nr The Political History of England , (Hunt and Poole, Irldi- tors) , vol. ix, 1906.

(2) The Cambridge Modern HI story , vol. v, 1909. (3) The Cambridge History of English Literature ,vol. ix, 1913.

(4) Memoirs as a Source of English Iilstory , (The Stanhope

Essay, by El ce-Oxleyl , 1914. 3

Robinson Crusoe , (ed. J.M. Dent and co., p. x). 4

A Guide to the .^iest Miction in English , ed. 1913, p. 13. The Memoirs are listed under Carle ton' s name. 5

Professor Saintsbury ( Encyclopedia Britannica , vol.vii ,ed.9 p. 29) says that the Memoirs have been attributed to Swift "with greater probability ( than to i^efoe) as far as style is concerned."

Likewise, Arundell Esdaile , In his English Tales and Prose I.omances , places the idemoirs under Defoe's name, but says that the attribute Defoe is doubtful.

-24-

The Defoe theory, meanrhile, has been championed by no less a person than Professor Trent of Columbia University, the eminent 1 authority on Defoe, llot only has he warmly supi:orted the position

taken by J.lr. Doble , but has also done some further research on his own account, the results of which are still unpublished.

Such, for nearly two centuries, have been the fortunes of the

"Memoirs". Their authenticity has been asserted by Dr. Johnson,

Sir Walter Scott, Lord Stanhope, Ifilliam Lee, James Crossley, J.H.

Burton, Mr. Ormsby, Sir Leslie Stephen, Charles Dalton, E.A.Baker, and Michael Harrington. Colonel Parnell, with some slig-ht comfort from Professor Saintsbury, has supported the cause of Dean Swift.

The chief supporters of the Defoe claim, have been Walter Wilson,

Lockhart, Craik, Lowndes, Mr. Doble, and Professor Trent. Other investigators, notably Thomas Wright and mr. Aitken, have rem.ained neutral.

From this mass of conflicting evidence and conjecture, two facts appear to me to be obvious. Firstly, that practically every new fact discovered concerning the historical Carleton tends to confirm the account given of his career in the memoirs attributed to him. Secondly, that the closer the contents of the "Memoirs" are analyzed the more untrustworthy they appear, and the more they point to Defoe as their author. In fact, granting that Carleton could not have written them in the main himself, the coEclusion already rendered so highly probable by Mr. Doble, becomes as cer-

1 (1) Cambridge Hi story of English Literature, vol. ix, chap.

1, (ed. 191.^, p.25) . (2) Trent, W.P.; Daniel Defoe, pp. 210, 262, 263, and 264.

-£6- tain as anything may te whioln. lacks direct external testimony. To that conclusion only one thing is wanting: the establishing of a probable connection between Carleton and. Jefoe. Until such a connection is established (or at least rendered very probable), or until it is conclusively demonstrated that Carleton could not have been the author, there remains the chance that the "Memoirs", though far from being authentic or trustworthy, were compiled by the old captain. The very fact of his name's being attached to them creates in his favor an antecedent probability which cannot be lightly ignored.

Before the question of the authorship can be definitely determined, however, or the degree of authenticity ascertained, it is necessary to find whether the literary sources of the book are sufficiently known. To draw stylistic conclusions from a given portion without being reasonably sure that that portion is the actual work of the author or authors, and not borrowed literally or substantially from previously written matter, is a manifest waste of time. The only intensive search for the sources of the

"Memoirs", of which I am aware, is that of Colonel Parnell. Intent on proving them fictitious, he discovered those three important works mentioned above, from which the author drew a considerable part of his materials. Parnell' s study was, however, not exhaust- ive, nor, as will appear later, were his conclusions entirely correct; for the "Memoirs'' of Sir 'Tilliam Temple were only indirectly utilized. So that sources for the narrative of the first thirty years of Carleton' s military career - some seventy pages of the "Memoirs" - are still to be discovered, though Parnell suggest-

-26- ed possible sources for certain episodes, and tir, ^oble has shown that a few of the anecdotes had been used elsewhere by Defoe.

The plagiarisms from i reind' s "Account" cover the years from

1705 to 1707 - approximately eig'hty pages of the "Memoirs' appear to be merely a condensation of the "Account". Sources for the remainder of the book, about one hundred and eighty pages, are unknown except for the copious but scattered borrowings from the d'Aulnoy "Letters". It should be noted, however, that in this portion of the book, dealing with Garleton's five years as -a prisoner in Spain, the narrative is relatively slight; descriptions and anecdotes take up the major part of the author's attention - matters which were probably gathered from numerous sources, many of them difficult to determine. Assuming that uetoe was the authoi; much of this would be from his own experiences; for he, as well as

Carle ton, had spent considerable time in Spain.

The importance of the questions at issue becomes apparent

^/hen we are reminded that, in spite of all that has been done to discredit the genuineness of the "Memoirs" and to prove that Defoe was their author, most students have remained unconvinced. Be- tween the fear of historians that it may be fictitious, and the fear of literary investigators that it may be genuine, the book is being ouite generally neglected. Many readers who are familiar with Defoe's "Colonel Jacque", "Memoirs of a cavalier," and "Dun- can Campbell," are wholly unacquainted with the "iiemoirs of Captain

Carle ton", '^his is owing to the fact that the only two recent editions of x>efoe's narratives,- the Aitken (1895) and the I;Iayna- dier (1903),- have, through an excess of caution, omitted these

-27-

"Meraolrs" , though including a number of works inferior to them.

It is manifestliT- not sufficient to show that portions of the

''Memoirs" are fictitious; the whole must be reinvest ig-atel and fact sifted from fiction. The uarleton myth must be annihilated.

So long as considerable fragments of it remain undestroyed, it may revive. The problem, of authorship must be definitely settled, and the "Carleton Memoirs" brought into place with the "Memoirs of a Cavalier", "Captain Singleton," and the rest of ue foe's fictions.

The relation of the "Carleton Memoirs" to the whole jJefoe problem is significant. Students of Jefoe have long been pu2Eled by the quantity of literarj?- productions. A bibliografhy of his multifarious writings, as com.piled by Professor Trent for the 1

"Cambridge History of English i^iterature" , occupies thirteen large and closely printed pages. It is almost incredible that one man should have written so much, and various explanations have been advanced to account for it. It has boen conjectured that Jefoe had a "double" whoso style was indistinguishable from his and who wrote some of the works attributed to him.. One suggestion, reminiscent of the Shakespeare-Bacon controversy, is that "Fobinson

Crusoe" was the woik of I.obert Harley, liarl of Oxford, by whom 2 Jefoe was long employed on mattei s of state.

Much more plausible, however, is the explanation offered by 3 Professor Bernbaum., who points out that "not all of Defoe's sup- posedly fictitious narratives can be confidently denominated either

1 Vol. Ix, pp. 467-461. 2

^.ee an article by T.L.Purves, Athe naeum , 2 liay , 1903. 3

The Me ry Carleton ITarratives , pp. 6, 7,

-E8- absolute fact or absolute fiction," and that a number are known to 1 have a "groundwork of fact." He continues:

"In the reaction against !7rlght's tendency to accept jjefoe'a assurances of authenticity at their face value, it is assumed that at least some of his novels ...were wholly derived from their author's imagination. But the fact that others of them. are... based upon published sources, suggests the necef?sity of in- vestigating the Defoe mystery anew. If, as I believe likely, journalistic and biographic sources shall be eventually found for all je foe's great novels, the fact that he is so voluminous V'^ill seem less astound- ing."

As we shall see, the method of composition of the "Carleton

Memoirs" supports Professor Bernbaum's surmise. The present study will consist principally in an attempt to determine more accurately than has yet been done the sources of these reputed memoirs in the newspapers, pamphlets, and histories extant in 1728, and to present some hitherto unnoticed evidence of Defoe's connection with their composition, iispecial attention will be paid to the opening events of the narrative.

The Mary Carleton L^arratives , p. 86.

Chapter II

THE COMPOSITIOII OF THE SOLKB/.Y EPISODE

The "Carleton Memoirs" open with an account of the famous

battle of Solebay (or Southwold Bay), which occurred in the year 1672. It will be recalled that, war having been declared apainst

Holland by England and France early in that year, de T.uyter, the

Dutch Admiral, on the 28th of May, surprised the combined Engljsh

and French fleets commanded by the Duke of York (later James II)

in Solebay, and engaged them in a long and bloody fight. With

this engagement, George Carle ton is said in the "Memoirs" to have

begun his career. A young gentleman of about twenty years, he had I with many others attended the Duke of York aboard the fleet, and

served in the battle as a "voluntier" on Sir Eiward Spragge's

ship, the London .

Ten pages of the "Memoirs" are devoted to an account of e-

vents connected with the battle, which precedes by two years the

later adventures of the hero. I purpose to examine this episode I

closely; because, complete in itself and detached from the rest j

of the narrative, it represents, or may represent, the whole book

in miniature, and a study of its contents and of the manner of

its composition may furnish a key to the method of writing the

entire work. If this one complete and detached episode proves to

be a genuine memoir, the fact will not be without significance.

If, however, we find that another hand than Carleton's has com-

posed it as a whole or in part, there will be the more complicated

problems of determining whose was that hand, and what is the

-30- amount of fictitious matter.

IJo effort, so far as I am aware, has previously been made to test the genuineness of this opening- account, and to discover to what extent it is baseu. on the experiences of the real Carle ton, and to what extent on accounts in the newspapers and histories of the times, Finding no way to test the statements of the "Memoirs" on this episode, Colonel Parnell passed on to other matters; and

Mr, jDoble did little beyond pointing out a number of stylistic 1 resemblances to acknowledged writings of Defoe. To him, however, we owe the only external evidence we possess that Carleton really may have been at Solebay. Attention has been called to the two letters written in Carleton' s interest by Dr. Covel in 1684 and

1685 respectively. Dr. Covel, at the time chaplain to the Prin- cess of Orange, was trying to secure for Carleton a captaincy in one of the English regiments serving under William of Orange in the Lowlands, and enclosed in his second letter a memorandum of

Carleton' s decade of service for irilliam prior to 1685, adding as an afterthought apparently, "He hath been at Sea with Edw.

Spragg."

This assertion is, in all probability, true; unfortunately, it does not specify Just when or where Carleton served with Sir

Edward. As 'he latter, however, perished in the fight of August

11, 1673, Carleton' s experience with him. could not have been later than that; and taking into account his career in general, it seems probable that he was too young to have served with Spragge before

1 Academy, vol. 43 (1893), pp. 393. 438,461, and 482.

'31-

1672. For Spragge had been employed in the i.:editerranean for

three years prior to that year, returning only in time to partici- pate in Solebay, and had Carleton been with him during his absence he must have gone to sea at least before the end of 1669. The

"Memoirs" state that he was about twenty years old in 1672, and, while this is not to be relied upon implicitly, it is probably very nearly correct. J?rom the indefinite manner in which the in- 1 formation is appended to Dr. Covel's enclosure, it would appear that Carleton' s naval service was of short duration; otherwise, more would have been made of it as a recommendation for promotion.

If we grant that Carleton was not at Solebay, we must admit, of course, that there is no basis of fact at all in the first, and one of the principal episodes of the "Memoirs", and that the author either was totally ignorant of, or totally indifferent to this period in his hero's career. But, considering that later parts of the "Memoirs" parallel rather closely the events of his life, the more probable assumption is that Carleton was with

Spragge aboard the London at Solebay. 2 This battle was the culmination of a month of maneuvering.

Mr. Doble ( Academy , 6 July, 1889, p. 9) says that the memorandum is not in Dr. Covel's handwriting, and thinks, from its contents, that it is not in Carleton' s either. E Accurate and detailed accounts of Solebay are scarce. There is a brief on in The Poll tical History of England {Hunt and Poole, Editors), vol. viii, pp. 110, 111; more particulars may be found in the Calendar of State Papers dom. ser. , May 18 to Sept. 30, 167£,

( 1699 ) , passim; and in the ^^ondon Gazette for May and June, 1372. Perhaps the most useful accounts are to be found in the Manu*- soripts of the Earl of Dartmouth , vol. iil ,( Historical Manuscripts Commi.ssion, Fifteenth report. Appendix, Part I, pp. 6-23); the interesting journal of Sir Edward Spragge contains a report of the battle; there is, also, a more formal account by him, as well as accounts by several other notable English seamen present.

-32-

jSarly in May, 16 7E, the English fleet, comcanled by the Duke of

York, had sailed from the iSIore to join the trench under D'Estrees

in St. Helen's Eoad. The Dutch admiral, de Kuyter, was on hand,

hut his attempt to prevent the union was unsuccessful. The com-

bined fleets made up three squadrons; the i?rench, under D'Estrees,

formed the White Squadron, while the English formed two: the Blue

with the Earl of Sandwich as commander, and the I.ei, of which Sir

Edward Spragge was vice-admiral. About May 23, the Duke of York

sailed with the three squadrons to Southwold Bay on tfte coas* cf

Suffolk, where de Euyter attacked him early on the morning of May

28th. Though taken by surprise, the English fought obstinately.

The gallant i^^arl of Sandwich, comm.anding the Blue, met the Dutch

resolutely, and his valor saved the allies from a total defeat.

It cost him his life, however, for, after a desperate struggle,

his ship, the Loyal Jame , was burnt, and he was lost trying to

escape from it; thirteen days Itter his body was discovered float-

ing on the sea some twenty miles from the scene of the disaster.

The Duke of York was compelled to change ships twice during

the action; first from the Prince to the St. Michael, commanded

by Sir lobert Holmes, and, late in the afternoon, to the London ,

commanded by Spragge, vice-admiral of the Led. Spragge bore a

brilliant part in the fighting, and was credited with having sunk

an enemy vessel of between sixty and seventy guns. Though the

Loyal James was the only English ship lost, several others were

I "by t!ie was recover- badly damaged. The Catherine , capture Dutch,

ed by her own crew. Her comm.ander , Sir John Chicheley, was taken

prisoner, and a large number of notable men, with several hundred

-33-

seamen, were slain. The Dutch losses were heavy also; Admiral

Van Ghent was killed, and several ships were sunk.

The fight continued till nearly ten at night; de Euyter at-

tempted to renew the conflict the following day, but was prevented

hy the fog. Both sides claimed a victory; continental opinion,

however, seems justified in favoring the Dutch. Throughout, the

French took little part In the fighting, and the English were not

slow in claiming that D'Estrees had orders to stand by while the

two maritime rivals, England and Holland, destroyed each other's 1 fleet.

Such are the generally accepted facts of what the ''Memoirs"

set forth as carleton's first adventure, in which, it is claimed, he served as a volunteer under Sir iidward Spragge on board the

London . Assuming for the moment that Carle ton was at Solebay, let us consider what sort of memoir of the event might reasonably be looked for from him fifty six years later. Ee was about twenty years old, and it was his first fight - in fact, it appears to have been his only naval encounter. For all of these reasons it would impress itself on his memory. Being aboard the London,

Carleton would quite naturally concern himself with the fortunes of that vessel, i'irst of all, some brief explanation of ho*? he

came to be assigned to the London , and what his duties were there might be expected. He should relate what were the preparations

of the London to meet the enemy on the morning of the attack.

Particular attention should be paid to the part she bore in the

bee a statement by Andrew Marvell made in 1678: Works , vol.iv, (ed. Grosart, p. 294).

-34- battle, and to the damage she gave to, and received from the enemy. The London belonged to the ted Squadron of which her commander,

Spragge, aa has been repeatedly stated, was vice-admiral, 'therefore, Carleton would deal more intimately with the fortunes of

Spragge ana. of the ted than with those of Sandwich and of the Blue,

This does not mean, of course, that the generally known facts of the battle might not be related even though they were remote from

Carleton and the London . It does mean, however, that the London would be the center of ooth his interest and his knowledge, and that in general other events would lose in ooth in direct proportion to their remoteness from that center. In any case, the actions in which uarleton participated personally would naturally form the major portion of the narrative.

Such, with reasonable allowances, is the kind of memoir we have every right to expect. A survey of this opening episode, however, reveals the surprising fact that we get nothing of the sort. The account is a very general summary of the battle, such as a popular history might give, without the slightest mention of

Carleton' s duties or actions during the fighting. It mentions the beginning of the war with Holland, the junction of the English and irenoh fleets in St. Helen's, and the decision to go to Sole- bay, where a few days later the xAitch attacked them. The battle as a whole is summarize a in a paragraph. Of the remaining ten paragraphs, one relates the conduct of the admiral, the i/uke of

York; another, the fate of the F.oyal James and of the Earl of Sand-

wich; a third, the fortunes of the Catherine ; two brief ones are devoted to a list of the Englishmen killed; another brief one tells

-35-

of some notable men who gained experience in the battle; the Dutch

losses occupy still another short paragraph; 97hile the remaining

three narrate anecdotes which are not of an historical character.

Every one of these, except the information as to the Duke of York's

conduct and two of the anecdotes, relates not to the London and

the Red Squadron, but to Sandwich and the Blue.

The closest scrutiny reveals few elements which have the appearance of being the personal experiences or recollections of

George Carleton - facts concerning himself and his own ship.

Making the most generous allowances, there are but eight of such

items to be found. It is to be emphasized that the great majority

of these relate to Carleton only in the sense that they are said

to have been witnessed by him, and not that he participated in

them. The following arrangement of the data is in the order in which they are recounted.

1. 167 2, George Carleton (not naraea, as the story is related in the first person), about EO years old, a gentleman volunteer with

Sir Edward Spragge aboard the London , (p.l).

2. Incident of the Duke of York's taking refuge on the London ; his bravery attested, (pp. 3, 4).

3. Incident of the finding of the body of the Earl of Sandwich, (pp. 4, 6)

4. Anecdote of a man on the London who, though a brave duellist, was 30 terrified by the fire of battle that he asked his eom.rades to tie him fast so he could not run, (pp. 6,7).

5. Sir George F.ooke mentioned as lieutenant to Spragge, (p. 9).

6. Carleton reported to have seen the wreck of an enemy ship standing out of the water, (p. 8).

7. Anecdote of Spragge' s pigeons which instinctively change ships "/henever their master does. This closes the account of Sole- l3ayt (PP« 9,10).

-36-

8. Carleton leaves the fleet soon after the battle, (p. 10).

Of these eight items, only the first and the last, briefly-

relating his entrance into, and his exit from the navy, concern

Carleton personally. The second, describing the conduct of the

Duke of York, loses for our purposes much of Its importance from

the exalted position of its subject. The bravery of the Duke on

this occasion was 7/ell-known. Bishop Parker's "History"*, publish-

ed the year previously to the "Memoirs of Carleton", was one of 1 many which attest this. Parker not only dwells on the bravery

of the jjuke , but relates, in r.ore detail than the "Memoirs" do, how he changed ships twice during the action, finally taking re-

fuge on the London . The particular details which Carleton is said

to have witnessed relate to the Duke's bold exposure of his person

on deck while the bullets "whizz' d" past; so far from shrinking, he is said to have rubbed his hands and cried, "Sprage, Sprage,

they follow us still." If these particulars as related in the

"Memoirs" are true, they were unquestionably to be found in con-

temporary accounts of the battle, even though not recorded in the scanty reports in the "Gazette". The conduct of the admiral of a

fleet in a great battle, especially when that admiral is the son

of one king, brother to another, and destined to be king himself,

does not wait fifty six years to be made known through the memoirs

of an obscure old soldier who was only a young volunteer at the

time of the events related. As a m.atter of fact, a number of

pamphlets dealing with the Duke's naval and military career ap-

Hi story of his own Times , pp. 150-154.

-37-

peared. in the half-century preceding the '*Carleton Memoirs", 1 though these are now scarce and difficult to obtain. If, however, a thorough search failed to reveal a published source for the

incident, one would be justified in entertaining grave doubts of

the event's having occurred at all. It is not, of course, im- possible that, though previous accounts did exist, the author of the "Ddemoirs" was independently of them delineating an event of which Carleton, as is claimed, was an eye-witness. But in the light of the plagiarisms which Colonel Parnell has discovered, and of those from the "London Gazette" which I shall shortly disclose, this appears very unlikely, especially as the incident is recounted with the same air of personal detachment as are others which happened on ships with which Carleton ht-d no connection.

The third item , relating to the discovery of the body of the

Earl of Sandwich, has sufficient basis in the "London Gazette".

First of all, it should be made clear that, two years after the 2 battle of Solebay, Carleton is said in the "Memoirs" to have grown tired of the inactivity at hom.e and to have gone to serve under William of Orange in the Lowlands. i«ow the author of the

"Memoirs" seems unquestionably to have had this journey in mind when he composed the account of the incident under consideration. 3 The "Gazette" reported that on June 10, 1672, the body of Sand- wich v/as found floating at sea and brought to shore at Harwich by

For example, see a volume entitled: Some Historical Memo ires , of... Jame s jjuke of York . . . t£ this present year 1 582 . 2 P. 11. 3 xlum.ber 685.

-38-

a ketch. Carleton is made to pretend in the "Memoirs" that in his

passage from Harwich to the Brill (near Hotterdam) a year or two

later, he learned of the fact from the master of the packet boat

on which he was travelling, this master being none other than the

discoverer of the body. On the surface this might appear plausible

enough were it not for a discrepancy into which the author has

fallen through his hasty and somewhat careless methoa of composi-

tion. For, when the Solebay episode is finished and Carleton,

tired of his two years of inactivity, is ready, in the summer of

1674, to go to the Lowlands, he does not go by way of Harwich and 1 the Brill. On the contrary, his route is by way of Dover, Calais,

jjunkirk, and Brussels'. Which of these two routes Carleton really

travelled will probably never be known; the author of the "Memoirs"

may not have known. But that Carleton did go to Holland before

August, 1674, is quite certain from external evidence supplied by

the enclosure to Di . Covel's letter, which has been mentioned more

than once before. This letter was written from Eonslaerdlke

Holland, in iviay of 1685, and the enclosure states that Carleton

had then been "tenn Yeares in the Service of the Prince", and that j

he was at the "Battel of Seneife" which occurred in August of j 1674. Had he gone to fight on the continent much earlier than

that, he v/ould have been credited with more than ten years of ser-

vice in May of 1685. It seems to be beyond dispute that he did go

to the continent sometime in the summer of 1674, as the "Memoirs"

state. If so, his most direct route would have been the second

one given in these memoirs; for the Prince of Orange had his army

1 P. 11.

-39 stationed, then at iilvelles, about twenty miles southwest of

Brussels, and jover, Calais, and Dunkirk are almost in a direct line with London and Brussels. Harwich is north of London, and the Brill and Eotterdara are far north of Brussles; so that, had

Carleton gone through thera, he m-ast have travelled considerably out of his way.

The manner in which this glaring discrepancy occurred (if anything may be called glaring which has not been remarked in 19 2 years) is obvious. The author of the "Memoirs", seeking to connect his hero with so interesting an event as the discovery of

Sandwich's body, noticed in the "Gazette" that the body was found somewhere near Harv/ich, recalled that Harwich is the usual place for taking passage to Holland, and so happened on this future journey of Carleton as a scheme for the connection. It was only when he came to write of Carleton' s career in the Lowlands that 1 he discovered (through Beyer's "History of William III") that

William's army was not in Holland at all, but at Uivelles, southwest of Brussels in Belgium, as has been stated. By that time, however, he had either forgotten about, or lost interest in the incident of the Barl's body.

This explanation becomes the more certain when it is shown on other grounds that the episode as related in the "Memoirs" is full of fictitious statements. 7?hether or not any detailed accounts of the finding of the Earl's body were published prior to

1728, 1 hfcve not been able to discover; but a number of letters

1 Vol. i, p. 49. At some future time I hope to show the de- pendence of the author of the Memoirs on Beyer's work (1702,3) for a large portion of his narrative.

-40-

end reports throwing consilerable light on the event are available 1 for us in the "Calendar of State Papers", In the first place,

they make clear that the body was not discovered by the crew of a packet boat as the "ilemoirs" claim, but by some seamen from the

Gloucester, a war vessel, who were out in a ketch trying to recover some of the Gloucester's equipment which had been lost on a place called the Sunk - apparently a sandbar of some sort somewhere off the coast. Other statements in the "Memoirs" are equally untruthful. It is related there that this master of the packet boat was led to his discovery through seeing a great flock of gulls hovering over the body, which came nearly being returned

to the waves "as the Corpse of a Dutch ivian" ; and that there was

"found about ?iim between twenty and thirty Guineas, some Silver, and his Gold Tatch; restoring which to his Lady, she kept the '

^atch, but rewarded their Honesty with all the Gold and Silver."

The fact is that the body was not discovered by the presence of gulls: the ketch was "sweeping and labouring" tc recover some anchors, and happened on the body. lone of the authentic reports mention the presence of fowls, though it seems that the corpse was surrounded with porpoises. The statement of the "ilemolrs" that "the Sailors would have returned it (the body) to the Sea as the Corpse of a Dutch Man; but keeping it in his Boat, it proved to be that of the Earl of Sandwich," does not agree with the facta.

It is well attested that the Earl was in his clothes, and decorated with the Order of the Garter. So dressed he would certainly not

1 Jom. ser., May 18 to Sept. 30, 1672, (1899), pp.l91-E07.

-41-

pass long for a Hollarn-ler, though his corpulent figure might favor

the misapprehension.

For the statement conoerning the gold watch and the money

found on the iiarl's clothing there seems to be a slight basis in

fact; a gold watch is actually recorded among the articles so

found. But beyond that item the account in the "Memoirs" appears

to be wholly fictitious. A correspondent of Sir Joseph Williamson, 1 then a secretary in the naval department, mentions seeing, besides

the watch, three elaborately jewelled rings which he describes, and his George, the jewelled pendant to the collar of the Order of

the Garter. There is no word of an^/ money, either silver or gold.

Thus, the whole episode connected with this pretended journey of

Carleton from Harwich to Holland turns out to be largely ficti-

tious, with no more basis than the brief announcement in the "Ga-

zette" that Sandwich's body had been found at sea and brought to 2 Harwich.

A basis for the seventh item, Carleton' s claiming to have

seen the wreck of the enemy's ship which had been sunk, is like-

Silas Taylor; Calendar of State Papers , dom. ser. , May-Sept. 1672, pp. 191-207. 2 Ihe Memoirs are apparently in error in reporting that the pretended finders of the corpse restored the watch and money to the Earl's wiiow who retained the watch but allowed them to keep the money as a reward for their honesty. While it is very likely that the ilarl's effects were returned to Lady Sandwich, if, indeed, she was still living, the actual channel through which they passed was somewhat less direct than the Ijlemoi rs seem tc imply. Cer- tain it is that whatever articles were found were sent by Captain Coleman of the Gloucester to Sir Joseph Williamson; how he disposed of them we can only surmise. There is no mention of Lady Sandwich in any of the accounts, either in the uaze tte or the

Calendar of State Papers , which have to do with the finding of the Earl's body and with its interment.

-42- 1 wise to be found in the "Gazette", which asserts that the whole

fleet saw it. Omitting the fourth item, the anecdote of the

cowardly duellist, we find, in the fifth, the statement that Sir

George Kooke (who, of course, was not Sir George till later) was youngest lieutenant to Sir Edward Spragge. As the young George

Booke and George Larleton were thus • shipmates , the incident at

first glance gives promise of some especial knowledge on the part

of Carleton, but that promise is dissipated when the author proceeds in the same sentence to relate that "Mr. x-ussel, afterwards

Earl of Orford, was Captain of a small i'ifth I^ate , called the

Phoenix; Mr. Herbert, afterwards Earl of Torrington, was Captain of a small Fourth Late, called the Monck; Sir Harry imtton Colt,

who was on board the Victory , commanded by the sLarl of Ossory, is the only man now living that I can rem.ember was in this Engage- ment." Our author is determined to be impartial; to prevent the reader's inferring too much from his knowing that P.ooke was a

lieutenant on the London , he goes on to show that he knows eaually 2 well about the i hoe nix , the Monck , and the Victory . As Rooke,

Kussel, and Herbert were later (than 1672) to become prominent naval leaders, inform.ation concerning them was not scarce. Sin- gularly enough, lussel died late in iifoveraber, 1727, some six months before the "Memoirs" were published - probably while they were being composed - and the facts of his life (involving, also, the

xi umber 684. 2 The i«iemoirs are certainly in error here; for Torrington ap- - pears to have commanded the .Dreadnought , not the i^onck . ( Ijiction - ary of National Biography , vol. ix, (1908) , p.621ff . ;also , Calen dar o7 State Papers, dom. ser.. May 18 to Sept. 30, 1672, (16991, pT^.T

-43- careers of Hooke and Torrington, who had both died earlier) would be fresh in the author's mini.

There remains still to be considered the fourth and seventh items in the list: one relating to the cowardly duellist - the other to Sir Edward Spragge's interesting pigeons, neither, however, throws any light on Carleton's conduct, being merely imper- sonal anecdotes of curious events which he is said to have witnessed.

This completes the survey of the personal touches in the first episode of the "Memoirs". TThat is the result? There are eight passages which promise something in the nature of personal knowledge or experience, "but In every case, except two, the promise is belied. Two of those passages are based on the "London

Gazette"; another is more than likely taken from a similar source; a fourth is given casually in company with others far removed from the pretended author; and two are merely anecdotes that anyone might relate and attribute to the occasion. The personal element in a ten page narrative simmers down to the two statements that (1) Carleton, a young gentleman of about twenty, was a volunteer aboard the London with Sir Edward Spragge at the battle of

Solebay in 1672, and that (P.) shortly after the engagement he left the fleet. It is evident, therefore, that this part of the "Mem- oirs" could have been fabricated with no more knowledge of what

George Carleton did or saw on the 28th of May, 1672, or, for that matter, in his whole life prior to 1673, than is contained in Dr.

Covel's memorandum:

"He hath been at sea with Sr Edw. Spragg."

-44-

The author, then, would place him aboard Sir Edward's ship, the

London, in one of the most famous events of Spragg-e's career; estimate his ape and rank from general circumstances and from his later career; and assume that he left the navy soon after the battle, as a volunteer would be quite likely to do when the crisis was past.

But did not Carleton see anything worth recording besides

the bravery of the Juke , the cowardice of the duellist, and the pigeons of Sir Edward? Where was he while the bullets "whizz' d" past the Juke and duellist? ".'as he exposed to no danger? Was he wounded? ^as he frightened? It was his first fight. ?Jhat were the nature of his duties? We search in vain for any trace of such matters. The author knows what a strenuous fight the

Royal James put up before sinking; he knows about the Gather i ne ; that she was captured by the imteh, that her sailors recovered her, and even that she was commanded in I'-.+'er times by the Earl of Mulgrave who had a painting of her made in his house in St.

James Park; further still, he knows that a certain "very fine

Gentleman" aboard this ship was devoured by hogs - he has not failed even to remember that gentleman's name. But does he know anything about the London ? He remembers a long list of persons killed aboard other ships; is it not significant that not one of those in his casualty list was on his own ship? One would imagine, if he did not know otherwise, that Sir Edward kept her out of the fighting, so little is recorded of her exploits. Is it possible that a man who had been in a great battle could write so much and tell so little of what he himself actually saw and experienced?

-45-

Of the Jutch losses, the "Memoirs" mention but one ship, the account of which, as will be shown, is apparently a garbled version of what the "Gazette" reports of two ships. But the "Ga- zette" reports the sinking of some half-dozen enemy vessels, for one of which Sir Eaward Spragge is given credit; and Sir Edward 1 mentions sinking a large enemy vessel in his report of the fight.

Strangely enough, the author of the "Memoirs" says nothing of all this. Can it be that Carleton helped sink an enemy ship, and failed to record the fact in his memoirs? The more reasonable assumption is that the compiler of the narrative, like many other well-informed Englishmen, believed that, with the proverbial inaccuracy of newspapers, the "Gazette" had somewhat exaggerated the enemy losses, and that the battle was in reality a x/utch victory, 1 But whether or not Sir Edward sank an enemy vessel, there is no doubt that the London bore a prominent part in the fighting, and one naturally wishes to know why the "Memoirs" tell nothing of it; why the author mentions so few events which occurred aboard his own vessel in proportion to those he relates as hap- pening on other vessels; why, though he gives a long list from memory of those killed elsewhere, he records no casualties among his own shipmates; and why he mentions not a single act performed by himself, or a single incident in which he was either an active

1 The London Gazette (no. 684) gives a list of the enemy's vessels reported lost; one item reads: "...a fourth (sunk) by Sir

Edward Spragg. . .betwixt 60 and 70 GunvS." The statement is cor- roborated by letters in the Calendar of State Papers (dora. ser.

May 18 to Sept. 30, 1672, 1899, pp. 163-5) , and in Spragge 's formal report of the battle ( Dartmouth Manuscripts , vol. iii, pp. 15, 16, and 17).

-46-

or passive parti olpant. The answer Is obvious; the author was not

at Sole bay, and had to make use of such materials as were at hand when fabricating: the story.

The result of our investigation has been to discover in the

"Memoirs" a total absence of any matter, other than the bare

statement of his entrance to, and his exit from the fleet, that personally concerns George Carle ton, and that, whoever was the author of these memoirs, that author was not present during the

occurrence of the events described. The next step is to find, if possible, where the information for compiling the narrative were

obtained. The "London Gazette" offers one convenient source, and a comparison of the accounts given therein with the one given in

the "Memoirs" shows that the latter is taken in part from the

"Gazette", either directly or from some intermediary work which

I have not yet been able to discover, neither Boyer nor Temple, whose works provided such convenient materials for later parts of

the Carle ton narrative , gives any account of Sole bay; and Parker's

"History" could have b^-^en only of general use. Kennett's "History" 1 follows the "Gazette" substantially, but changes the wording somewhat, so that though it was probably consulted, it apparently does not form the basis of the Carleton story, which bears much greater

resemblance to the "Gazette" accounts. The passages which most

clearly owe their origin to the "Gazette" will now be compared with those from which they were, directly or indirectly, taken.

Complete History of England , vol. ill, p.S88.

. .

-47-

"CarlQton Memoirs" , pp.1 ,2. "London Gazette", no. 674 Thursday May 2 to Munday May 6, 1672. "Whitehal, iviay 5...

"The Fleet set Sail... about the Count d'Es trees , Vice -Admiral the beginning of May, in order of France, was with the Squadron

to Join the French Fleet , then of French Ships arrived at St . aT Anchor in" St. Hellene Koad, Helen s . . .His Eoyal Highness... under tl;ie Command of the CoUnt was passed. . .with His Majesties de Eatree Fleet... i_n orde r to his conjunction with the sail Squadron."

P. 2. Ho. 680. Thursday May 23 to Munday May 27.

"...We sailed directly to- "Whitehal, May 23... we weighed wards the Dutch Coast, where we and stood to the Southward; at soon got sight of their Fleet ; five a Clock we saw the Dutch ...the Galloper lying betvreen Fleet. ..at 12 we passed by the

...it was resolv' d. . . to sail Galloper . . .At eight a Clock we " directly to Solebay , which was were tefore 8ould ,^ay . . . accordingly put in Execution."

P. 3. lo. 681.

"It was about Four in the "Southwold, May 28. past iline

Morning of the 28th of May . . . at Hight. About five... this when we first made the Discov - Morning Eis Majesties Fleet... ery ; and about Eight . . . the discovered the Dutch. . about

Blue Squadron . . .began to en- Seven the Dutch engaged with the gage ... the Amsterdam Squaclron Blew Squadron . . . they ceased from 7 .TThe Fight lasted till Ten Firing between Eight and line at Night..." this Night."

Attention should be called to the fact that, though the author of the "Memoirs" twice copies the "Gazette's" use of the qualifying word "about" with regard to the precise hours at which the events occurred, he persists in every case in differing by one hour from the "Gazette" as to what those hours were.

Pp. 4,5. :To. 681

( Continuation of the previous account)

" . . the Royal James . . . ( after " . . . the I.oyal Jame s being over- strenuous Endeavours. .. to dis- prest with Men of War and engage her from two Dutch Fire Fireship s , a Flag Ship laid hira-

Ships « . .one athwart her Hawsers self thwart his haw( ? ) se . . . three 777) took Fire, blew up, and Fireships attacked the Eoyal James two of which he sunk; the other

« " ". .

-48-

took place and burnt him..."

(Sote this sentence from Ken- nett's "History", p. 288.

". . .the Koyal James. . .was at last burnt... and the iloble Sari perished ; and with her a great (of Sandwich) perished in her . many brave Gentlemen . . .amongst with many b rave Gentlemen . . " ) the rest the^SarTTof Sandwich) himself, concerning whom I shall "Gazette," Ho. 685. further add, that in my Passage " from Harwi ch to the Brill, a Harwich , June 10. Year or two after, the Master of the racquet Boat told me, That ... discovering a Corpse... This lay the Body of the... it proved to be that of the

Earl of Sandwich . . . Earl of Sandwi ch ( was ) discovered ...by one of His Llajesties Ketches.

P. 5 (Continued) JJo. 681 (Continued) "Al bo rough. Hay 28. Ten at x^ght.

"... the Katherine was taken , ... the Catherine was taken , and . . Sir John Chic he ley made and Sir John Chichely . . .put a- prlsoner, board of the Dutch Ships, and all the Men under the Hatches... her Sailors soon after finding the Prisoners. . .found a way to the Opportunity they had watch- break out upon the Dutch , and el for, seiz'd all the Dutch redeemed. .. their Ship , and a-

Sailors. . .and brought the Ship back. .. together with all the bout 16 or 17 of the , jutch Men Prisoners . . " Dutch Prisoners are brought a- . shoar . .

P. 7. £fo. 684. "'Thitehal, June 9. "The Karnes of those English ^e have this following List of Gentlemen who lost their Lives, Persons of Note have been Kill- as I remember, in this Engage - and wounded^in the late engage - ment . " ftent .

There follows in both cases a list of the casualties, though these lists differ somewhat. The author of the "Memoirs" arranges the names and titles in sentence form, whereas the "Gazette" gives them in double columns, as the "Memoirs" do in other instances; the "Gazette's" list is much the more complete, though the "Mem - oirs" add a few nam.es not to be found in the "Gazette", ana occasionally gives additional information about the rank and fortunes

-49-

of those mentioned; for instance, where the "Gazette" lists "Mr.

Digby, Capt.of the Henry", the "Memoirs" have, "Mr. Digby, Capt.

of the Henry, second Son to the Earl of Bristol;" likewise, after

the name of "Sir iretchvile Holies, Capt. of the Cambridge", is

added the information that "he lost one of his Arms in the War be-

fore, and his Life in this."

The remarkable thing, however, is not that the lists differ,

but that they are so much alike. Is it not a striking coincidence

(if it be a coincidence) that an old soldier, in giving from memory the list of those killed fifty six years before in his first

battle, should be able to recall so much of it with names, titles,

and all like those in the "Gazette"?

A curious evidence of the hasty and inaccurate manner in which the list was compiled for the "Memoirs" lies in the follow- 1

Ing paragraph: "Sir Philip Carteret , Mr. Herbert , Mr. Gotterel... with several other Gentlemen unknown to me, lost their lives... on 2 board the Eoyal James..." In the "Gazette", that portion reads:

"Sir Philip Cartwright , Sir Charles Harbord. . .Mr . Cotterel..." ; at the bottom of the list is an estimate of the whole number slain not counting "those lost in the F.oyal James." Apparently, the author of the "Memoirs", having hastily transcribed "Cartwright" as "Carteret", made the further error of overlooking Sir Charles

Harbord' s title and first name, and of changing his surname to

Herbert. It is conceivable, though scarcely probable, that the error was an oral one - that two men were at work, one digging the

Memoirs , p. 8. 2 Ko. 684.

. . "

-50- itema from the "Gazette" and other sources, and dictating them to the other who might easily enough be so careless or so inexpert as to mistake the sound of "Harbord" for "Herbert", esre dally 1 as the latter name was pronounced "Harbert",

From the account of the English losses, the "Memoirs" pass to the brief notice of those of the Dutch. Here again the "Gazette" has influenced the Carle ton version. It is to be noted that in both the "Iiiemolrs" and the "Gazette" a paragraph devoted to the iiutoh losses follows Immediately the iiingllsh casualty list.

"Memoirs", p. 8. "Gazette", Ko. 684

"...the Dutch had one Man of "...a great J)utch Man £f War sunk War... was seen to si_nk. ..off of though so near the Shore Orfordness. . . some days after, the that I saw some part of ^rack of this Ship was seen by His Majesties Fleet as they pasped...as was also another her Main Mast remain above . . her Masts . . standi ng out of the Water ." «ater.

So much for the portions of the episode that were, or may have been taken from the "Gazette". In the light of the plagiarisms which Colonel Parnell has shown, I venture to assert with little fear of contradiction that the similarities of the accounts in the "Memoirs" and the "Gazette" are due to more than accident, and that the author of the "Memoirs" has relied either upon the

"Gazette" directly or else upon some intermediary work which had quite literally borrowed from the "Gazette".

^e have, then, a portion of a book which pretends to be an authentic memoir, but which, upon examination, proves to contain

1 The comment at the foot of the Gazette ' s list, "The Eoyal James was the only (English) Ship lost,'' is undoubtedly the original of the i£emoirs* statement (p. 5) that, "This (the Loyal Jam.es ) was the only .Sfi-fp 'the English lost In this long SngagemeirS .

-51- a neglible amount of personal matter, by far the greater portion being merely a general account which could have been compiled from previously published records. One episode, indeed, that relating to the discovery of the Karl of Sandwich's body, contains, as we have seen, a considerable amount of fictitious matter. '2'he work, then, has the appearance of a fabrication. Investigation of a limited number of earlier accounts reveals that what we had before only suspected is actually the case, and that the author of the "Memoirs" had borrowed liberally from at least one source, probably from two, and possibly from three or more. The account is not merely a fabrication - it is to a considerable degree a plagiarism.

Having determined that the account is not a genuine memoir, but fiction of no very honorable sort, we have now to discover who it was that thus used the name, and, to a very limited extent possibly, the activities of a real character as an occasion for the narrative. Carle ton, it is evident, affords no sufficient basis for that authorship. It has been demonstrated that the author could not have been at Solebay, while Carle ton, we have good reason to believe, was. At any rate, he had some experience at sea, and it is unquestionable that if he had been writing the

"Memoirs", some of his own experiences would have been utilized, inasmuch as material was so scarce that it had to be digged piece meal from the "Gazette" and from other sources.

It is to be emphasized that the clues to the real author lie in the amplifications of the borrowed materials. These amplifica tions as a rule do not reveal a familiarity with the small detail

-52-

of the battle so much as a wide knowledge of affairs in general.

The author knew, for instance, that Captain Digby, slain at Sole-

bay, was "second Son to the iiarl of Bristol"; that Lord liaidstone

was "Son to the Karl of WinchelSea" ; and that the Catherine was

later commanded by the iSarl of Mulgrave who, as xmke of Bucking-

ham, had a picture of her painted in his house in St. James' Park.

All this points to a Londoner, and a well-informed one, too.

Sir Harry Dutton Colt is mentioned as having been aboard the

Victory ; Sir Earrj lived in TTestminister , where he was a justice;

for years, also, he sat in parliament for the corporation of 'Vest-

minister. In 1731. he died at his home in Pall Mall.

Carleton's hom.e , it will be rem.embered, had been in Dublin

for over thirty years previously to the publication of the "Mem-

oirs". It appears probable that the author for whom we are search-

ing will prove to have been some well-informed Londoner,

Chapter III

THE POSSIBLE AUTHORSHIP OF THE SOLEBAY EPISODE

Four years before the "Carleton Menoirs" were given to the world, that is, in 1724, a book, ostensibly of a far different nature from those memoirs but really very similar to them, was published, This work was entitled: "A TOUK thro' the whole Island of

Great Britain. . .giving a. .. Diverting ACCOUUT of Whatever is CU-

RIOUS and worth OBSiiRVATIOif . . . A DESCRIPTIOil of the Principal Cit-

ies and Towns. . .The .. .Diversions. . .of the People... The Sea Ports and Fortifications. ..( and) The... Seats, and Palaces of the EOBIL-

ITY and GEIJTEY..." The author was Daniel Defoe. Conformably to the title, Defoe, who had travelled widely in England, described the routes he took, and the places he passed through, and related historical incidents and anecdotes which he had heard about those places. Fortunately for our purposes, he visited and described the regions about Solebay and Harwich, as well as the country seats of a number of the notable men who figure in the account of the battle of Solebay given in the "Memoirs". More fortunately still, there is a long paragraph devoted to that very battle. 1 "This Town," Defoe writes of Southwold, "is made famous for a very great Engagem.ent at Sea, in the Year 1672, between the English and Dutch Fleets, in the Bay opposite to the Town; in which, not to be partial to ourselves, the English Fleet was worsted; and the brave Iiontague Earl of Sandwich, Admiral under the Duke of York, lost his Life: The Ship Royal Prince, Carrying 100 Guns, in which he was, and which was under him, commanded by Sir Edward Spragg, was Burnt, and several other Ships lost,

1 Letter i, p. 83. Unless otherwise stated, all references to the Tour are to vol. i.

-54-

and about 600 Seamen; part of those Icilled in the Fight, were, as 1 was told, brought on Shore here and buried in the Churchyard of this Town, as others also were at Ipsv/ich."

The paragraph has been quoted entire because It shows that

Defoe was familiar with the battle and the circumstances connected with it. Writing from memory, he was inaccurate: Sandwich was

not aboard the Eoyal Prince , but the Hoyal James, as we have seen;

nor did Spragge command the Prince : he was in the Bed Squadron, not the Blue, and commanded the London. Like the author of the

"Memoirs", however, Defoe was under no delusions about who won the fight. Here, then, is evidence that Defoe knew at least the following facts about the battle of Solebay: (1) that it occurred in

1672 at Solebay; (2) that the English fleet was worsted; (3) that the Duke of York commanded; (4) that the Earl of Sandwich was one of the admirals and that he lost his life; (5) that Sir Edward

Spragge commanded a vessel; (6) that the Prince was one of the vessels; (7) that several vessels were lost; (8) that about 600 seamen were slain; and (9) that part of the slain were buried at

Southwold and at Ipswich. Of these nine items, the first seven appear in the "iylemoirs".

It has been stated that the clue to the authorship of the

Solebay narrative in the "Memoirs" lies in the amplifications of the material borrowed from the "Gazette". Of the general circumstances of the battle of Solebay, Defoe had, as we have just seen, a broad knowledge. The next step will be to determine whether or not he possessed the particular information and interest exempli- fied in the expansions referred to,

©ne of those amplifications we have already examined with sone care: that relating to the incidents connected with Carle- ton' s journey to Holland in 1674 and with the finding of the Earl of Sandwich's body. The result of that examination was to throw the whole incident into a dubious light. In the first place, the author, by describing his hero as having pursued two distinct routes in this journey to Holland has made it appear extremely improbable that he really knew which route Carleton actually took; in the second place, the details of the incident prove to be most- embroiderings to the simple statement in the "Gazette" that the

Earl's body had been picked up at sea and brought to Harwich. It is evident that to have fabricated the account, the author must have known at the very least that the regular route between England and Holland is by Har.vich and the Brill; the more familiar he was with that fact, the more likely would it have been for the idea to have occurred to him. Let us see how far Jefoe's acquaintance with Harwich and its packet boats extended.

It is interesting that he described Harwich at considerable 1 length in his "Tour", and mentioned having been there a number of times. Of the ample and well fortified harbor, enlarged by the

Inflowing of the Stour and the Orwel, he remarked that great use had been made "in the old Dutch War", and added that he had "known

...100 Sail of Lien of War... and between three and four hundred

Sail of Collier Ships, all in this harbour at a time." "Harwich," 3 he stated further, "is known for being the Port where the Packet-

Letter i , pp. 47-51. Z P. 48. 3 P. 49.

-56-

Boats, between England and Holland, go out and come in." There follows a paragraph of complaint about the sharp usage travellers receive at the hands of the inhabitants, which has resulted in the establishing of a passage directly from the Thames to Holland, and in the abandoning of the regular stage coach conveniences between London and Harwich. In another and earlier work of Defoe, 1 the "Storm", the phrase, "between Harwich and the Brill," almost duplicates that of the "Memoirs", "from Harwich to the Brill."

Another small circumstance is not without significance; speaking of Carleton's passage, the "Memoirs" use the word "Pacquet Boats";

Defoe, in the "Tour", says "Packet-Boats" ; while the "Gazette",

Kennett's "History", and all the other accounts I have seen of the finding of Sandwich's body use the word "Ketches" or "Katches".

In this instance, certainly, Defoe proves to have had sufficient knowledge for the fabrication of a significant addition to what the "Gazette" had reported.

We. have seen that the account of the capture and recovery of the Catherine was taken almost verbatim from the "Gazette"; but the closing details are unquestionably contributions of the author of the "Memoirs". He goes on to relate the the Catherine was

commanded in the next fight by the ijlarl of Mul grave , later to be

Duke of Buckingham, who had a picture of her painted in his house in St. James' Park. The Catherine was no new subject with Defoe, 2 3 as Mr. Doble has pointed out. He mentioned her in the "Tour";

1 P. 264. 2

Academy , vol. 43 (1893), p. 439, 3 Letter ii, p. 26.

( .

-57-

there , also, he spoke of the fine pictures in the Juke of Bucking- ham's house, remarking that "the Apartments are very noble, the furniture rich, and many very good Pictures." Mr. Doble further informs us that Defoe had describe.! this house as early as 1705 in the "Dyet of Poland". The house in question had been built in

1703, just as Defoe was entering on his journalistic career.

There are not wanting indications that Defoe possessed the knowledge necessary for making the supplemental remarks concerning some of those mentioned in the casualty list. It has been stated that occasionally the "Memoirs" insert comments giving additional information about the killed. The "Gazette" gives Lord Maidstone's name without comment; but the "Memoirs" add that he was "Son to

. the Earl of Winchelsea. . " Fortunately, we have good reason to believe that Defoe knew of this relationship; describing a place 1 near Maidstone in the "Tour", he remarks that it is the seat of the Earl of Winchelsea. Ijiothing, then, would be more natural than that when, four years later, he came across the name of Lord Maid- stone in the "Gazette's" casualty list, he should supplement the bare mention of the name with some information which he possessed of that Lord's family connection.

1 Letter ii, p. 36. 2 The Memoirs list "Captain Saddle ton of the Dartmouth" among the slain. Captain Sadlington (not Saddleton) was not killed at

Solebay, however. Calendar of S.P.,d.s., May-Sept . ,1672 ,p ,313) neither he nor the Dartmouth are mentioned in the Gazette's account of the battle. Frequently, as in his account of Solebay in the Tour, Defoe was led into error through too great reliance on his memory. Another statement in the Memoirs which may or may not be false is that Sir Frescheville Kollis "lost one of his Arms in the war before, and his Life in this." The writer in the Dictionary of National Biography is not sure that Hollis was so disfigured.

-68-

Passing on to the informational paragraph devoted to Sir

George Eooke , the Earls of Orford and Torrington, and Sir Harry

Dutton Colt, it is scarcely necessary to state that each of these men were prominent figures of Defoe's day, and that, especially to a Londoner, the general facts of their lives would be known. The first three, all famous naval commanders, as has "been remarked, 1 are mentioned in the "Tour", describing Canterbury, Defoe names among its great families that of "Sir George Eook, famous for his

Services at Sea against the French," and quotes the doggerel lines,

"made by some of the iiderry Wits of that Time," beginning,

"The Great Tourville Sir George did Beat, The Great Sir George Beat him..." 2 Of Orford, Defoe remarks: ",,.v7e saw a noble Seat of the Late

Admiral Kussel, now Karl of Orford;" and he comments on the great naval victory Eussel won at La Hogue (Barfleur) in 1692, which as it happens is described later on in the "Memoirs". Herbert (Sari 3 of Torrington), Defoe mentions in connection with the place near which he cautiously refused to permit the English fleet to join with the Dutch in an injudicious attack on the French; a long paragraph is given to the episode, and to a defense of Torrington' conduct. It is of interest to know further that both Orford and

Torrington were connected with the expedition of William of Orange to England in 1688. Torrington commanded the Prince's fleet on the way from Holland, and Orford joined his forces soon after they landed in England. Likewise, Daniel Defoe, having in some unac-

Letter iii , p. 43. 2

Letter i , p . 113. 3 Letter ii, pp. 51,52.

-59- oountable manner escaped with his life from participation in the

Monmouth P.ebellion three years earlier, was among those who wel- 1 corned the new king and who marched to the capital with him.

i)efoe's interest in Orford, and, also, in the Duke of Buck- ingham, (mentioned above, and in the "Memoirs", p. 5), would beyond question be increased from their having been named (1706) as members of the commission to arrange the union with Scotland, a project to which ijefoe lent his best energy for a number of years, and the success of which was due in no small degree to his patient and dogged efforts. The last named of the four. Sir Harry Dutton

Colt, as has been remarked, was a well-known magistrate about

London, and consequently no stranger to a widely informed journalist such as Defoe was.

There remain some minor items still to be pointed out. The second paragraph of the "Memoirs" opens: "The Fleet set Sail from

the . . .Bore . . . to join the French... in St. Hellens Road." The essential facts stated here were accessible in the "Gazette", and were doubtless taken from it; but beyond. that, Defoe, as anjr Eng- lishman might be, was well acquainted with both St. Helen's and 2 the jSore. He remarked of Sheerness that the officers are "often oblig'd to be here many Days together; especially when the Rendez- vous of the Fleet is at the lilore. " Likewise, he stated of the

1 The Memoirs seem to be in error again in giving the Monck as the vessel commanded by Torrington at Solebay. The Dictionary of

National Biography says that he commanded the Dreadnought , and, though frequently inaccurate in such matters, it here appears to be correct. ( See Cal . of S.P. , d.s., May-Sept ; ,1672 , p. 89). 2 Tour, Letter ii, pp. 27,29.

-60-

Earl of Scarborough's seat at Stansted, that from its dining room

can be seen "the Ships... at St. Helens; which when the Royal Havy 1 happens to be there... is a most glorious Sight," The Ivore and St. 2 Helen's are mentioned on the same page of the "Storm".

The "Gazette" mentions the Galloper without saying what it is, 3 whereas the "Memoirs" speak of it as a sand uron which the Charles 4 was lost in the previous war. In the "Storm", Defoe calls the

Galloper "a very dangerous Sand." That Defoe was, also, familiar 5 with the Charles has been shown by Zr, Doble, who auotes Defoe's 6 remark that the Charles is "a first-rate ship, being of a reddish colour, different either from brass or copper."

This completes the list of amplifications of the borrowed accounts which require the possession of additional knowledge on the part of the author of the "Memoirs". In every case, we find that Defoe not only had that additional information, but that he had used that information in his other writings. By itself this fact might have no great significance; jefoe was not the only man in England who was widely informed. At any rate, we have an author who had produced a number of works similar in character to the "Memoirs", and who possessed the necessary information and interests to have written the "Memoirs", also. We have, moreover,

1 Tour, letter ii, p. 71. 2 P. 65. 3 P.E. 4 P. 218. 5

Academy , vol. 43 (1893), p. 439. In this connection, Mr. Do- ble points out that the Charles was not lost on the Galloper.

Projects, p. 52 .

" a

-61- evidence that both Defoe and the author of the "Memoirs" associat- ed similar ideas with the places and events mentioned in the Sole- hay episode.

It has been mentioned that the anecdote of Sir Edward

Spragge's pigeons, related in the "Memoirs", is placed at the very end of the Solebay episode: having described the battle, given the casualty list, and mentioned the i^tch losses, and being ready to have his hero quit the fleet, the author launches on the pigeon story. It is more than a coincidence, perhaps, that Defoe, in the paragraph immediately following his account of the battle of Sole- bay in his "Tour", likewise tells a remarkable incident about birds, which he claims to have witnessed at Southwold. The anecdotes differ somewhat; but they, also, have many points in common.

It is necessary to quote both quite literally.

"Memoirs", pp. 9,10.

"ICAOTOT here omit one Thing, which to some may

trifling ; though I am apt to think our liatural- ists may have a different Opinion of it, and find it afford their Fansies no undiverting Employment .. ."Je had on board the London... a great dumber of Fidgeons, of which our Commander was very :^ond. These, on the

firing of our Cannon, dispers ' d. . .and were seen no where near us during the Fight. The next Day... brisk Gale... drove our Fleet some Leagues to the

Southward. . .yet the Day after they all returned safe aboard; not in one Flock, but in small Parties of four or five at a Time. Some Persons ... admiring at

the Manner of their Eeturn. . . Sir Edward Sprage told them, That he brought those Pidgeons with him from the Streights; and that... when he left the Pevenge ...to go aboard the London, all those Pidgeons, of their own accord. .. left the Revenge likewise, and removed on board the London, where I say them... What Sort of Instinct this could proceed from, I leave to the Curious .

. r .

-62-

De foe's "Tour", Letter 1, p. 83ff.

"...I think the following Femark, tho' of so

tri fling a Circuinstsnee , my be both Instructing,

as well aa Diverting , « . I was some Years before at this Place... ani observ'd in the evening an unusual Multitude of Birds sitting on... the Church; Curiosity led me to go nearer to see 7hat they were, and I found they were all Swallows; that there was such an infinit e Uumbe that they cover' d the whole Eoof...

this led me to Enquire of a grave Gentleman. , .what the meaning was of such a prodigious Multitude of Swallows... I perceive, Sir, says he, you are a Stranger to it; You must then understand. .. that this

is the Season. . .when the Swallows. .. return to the Country ... from whence ... they came; and this being the nearest to the Coast of Holland, they come here to Embark; this he said Smiling a little, and now Sir, says he, the Weather being too calm, or the ' wind contrary, they are -vaiting for a Gale, for they are all Wind-bound. "xhis was more evident ., .when in the Morning I found the Wind had come about to Ilorth-west in the Uight, and there was not one Swallow to be seen, of near a Million, which I believe was there the Hight before "How those Creatures know that this...js the

Way to their Home... We must leave to the naturalists . n « • •

Is it not strange that two authors should tell two stories of similar character and connect them, not only with the same region, biit, also, with the same event? Both Defoe and the author of the "Memoirs" associate birds with the idea of Southwold.

Attention should be called to the fact that the similarity of the two anecdotes extends even to the phraseology employed; in each case, the author has emphasized the large number of fowls, and has the point of interest lie in the question of instinct which guides their movements. Both, furthermore, begin with the apology that though the circumstance may appear trifling it is diverting, and end with statements that are almost word for word the same: that of the "Memoirs" is, "I leave to the Curious;" and Defoe's,

-63-

"We must leave to the I^aturallsts. " Che inference that Defoe, having fabricated the Carleton account of Solebay, and desiring to give the atmosphere of genuine memoir to what is otherwise a common-place history, had recourse to the ideas which he had connected with Southwold in the "Tour", written four years previously, can hardly be evaded. Obviously, the story of the swallows could not be repeated; so a similar one was substituted.

Hot only does Defoe possess the requisite knowledge and interests for the composition of this Solebay episode, but he and the author of that episode have similar association of ideas. Both associate packet boats with Harwich, and birds with Southwold.

Attention now will be called to the presence of a number of Defoe's favorite ideas in the narrative.

There is the story of the cow&rdly duellist, related on page

6. Commenting on this duellist, the author of the "Memoirs" says:

"There is a bravery of Mind which I fansy few of those Gentleman Duellists are possess' d of. True Courage cannot proceed from what Sir Walter F.aleigh

finely calls the Art or Philosophy of Quarrel. No I It must be the issue of Principle, and can have no other Basis than a steady Tenet of Keligion."

Parallels for this discussion of duelling and true courage are

com.miOn with Defoe. Take, for e3

Defoe remarks that they "run themselves into Debt... and then in

Quarrel, they, or some other Gentleman, may be, is run through... their very Pride ... sub jects them too often to the lowest and mean- est Acts; and their Courage ... turns into a brutish and savage 8 Eage." At another place in the same work, he speaks of an ambush's

^Ed. 1780, pp. 813,814. 168.

-64- belng arranged with much, false courage. 1 I am indebted again to Mr. Doble for these further instances.

In the "Journal of the Plague Year" (ed. Cassels, p. 120), Defoe remarks, "The poor.. .went about their employment, with a sort of brutal courage; I m.ust call it so, for it was founded neither on religion or prudence." A similar assertion is quoted by VTalter

Wilson from the preface to volume eight of Defoe's "Eeview": "I question whether there is much, if any difference between bravery and cowardice, but what is founded in the principle they are engaged for." Again, there are the verses from the "Serious Ee flec- tions of Eobinson Crusoe" (p. 28):

"Among the worst of cowards let him be nam'd. Who having sinn'd's afraid to be asham'd; And to mistaken courage he's betray' d, 3 Who having sinn'd's asham'd to be afraid."

The duellist referred to in the anecdote, Mr. Doble thinks must have been some well-known person; for Warner's "Epistolatory

Curiosities" (1st series, p. 129) quotes a letter dated March 10th,

1684(5), stating that the new king "says, he knows a man hath fought nine duells, and is a very coward, having been manifestly knowne such in an engagement att sea." Again, we are confronted with a possible elem.ent of truth in what appears to be unadulter- ated fiction. The new king referred to could be none other than the adiriral who commanded at Solebay, for the Duke of York had become James II on February 6, 1686, barely a month before the

Academy , May 20, 1893, p. 439. 2

Defoe , iii, 294. 3

Further cases cited by Mr. Doble are: History of the Devil , p. 293; Lee, Defoe ,iii , pp. 124. 296 ; and Colonel Jacque , p. 450.

. . t ' ; ;

-65-

letter was written.

The mention of Sir Walter Ealeigh's name by the author of

the "Memoirs" is significant, as I.aleigh was one of Defoe's favor-

ite authors; his "History of the World" was among the books found 1 in Defoe's library after his death. Mr. Doble is authority for the further information that the reference in the "Memoirs'" is to 2 the "History of the World", ana that Defoe had mentioned Kaleigh in at least eight of his other works, always with the highest 3 praise

It might be thought by some that Defoe, the author of the

"True-Born Englishman", and a strong supporter of King William, and of the Hanoverian Succession, would not have undertaken the defense of the Duke of York's conduct, or have praised his bravery, as the author of the "Memoirs" has done. On the contrary, however, Defoe would have been likely to do such a thing, and as a matter of fact did do so in the "Tour", in terms highly suggestive of the "Memoirs". "I am very sensible," remarks the author of the "Memoirs" (p. 4), "later Times have, not been over favourable in their Sentiments of that unfortunate Prince s

Vslour, yet cannot omi the doing a Piece of Justice to his

Mr. Aitken, Athena_eum , June 1, 1895. Unfortunately, Defoe's library was catalogued for sale with that of a clergyman, and there is now nc way to be absolutely certain as to whether a particular book was in the library of Defoe or that of the clergyman. There is little reason for uncertainty, however, in the case of

Ealeigh's History . 2

ifid. Oxford, vol. vi , p. 459. 3

Tour , i,iii,85; iii,263; System of Magic , ( ed.l840) ,18 ,31

History of the Devil , {ed. Bohn) , 533; Works . ii,61,284; Storm ,4

Plan of the Engli sh Commerce , xiii,148; Serious Ee fleet ions , E44 and the Eeview i, 145.

-66-

Memory." In the "Tour" (ii,31), ijefoe, speaking of the place

where James II was made prisoner in his flight of 1688, says: "...

I^ must mention it to the Eeproach of the People of Fever sham,

let the conduct of that Unfortunate Prince be what it will, that

the. ..Babble can never be excus'd, who treated the King. ..with

the utmost inde cency. . . till some ITeighboring Gentlemen. . .who un-

derstood their Duty be tter . . .pieserv' d (him) from, farther Violence

... ft

Consider further the additions to the "Gazette's" report of

the finding of the Earl of Sandwich's body, "^e have seen that, whereas the "Gazette" announced merely that the body was "discovered floating on the Sea," the "Memoirs" explain how that discov-

ery came to be amde : the finders were led to it by the great fleck of gulls which hovered over the body, - an explanation which has been shown to be contrary to the facts in the case. Those who are familiar with the use uefoe appears to have made of the

Journal of Selkirk in writing his "Kobinson Crusoe" will recall that Selkirk claims that there were cats on his island, and that

Defoe renders that simple statement more credible by explaining how the cats came to be there. This use of details to give veri- similitude is a commomplace of Defoe criticism, and will account for the further supplementing of the incident in the "Memoirs".

Hot content with sim.ply having the body brought ashore, the author must again give a significantly realistic touch by relating that there was "between twenty and thirty Guineas, some Silver, and his Gold Tatch" found on the body. To anyone who remembers the evident pleasure with which Defoe's characters mention sums

-67-

of money, this sentence will not be without significance; pieces

of eight, louis d'or, guineas, pounds sterling, and other terms

for money tre frequent in their mouths. The gaining of money is

the chief pursuit of Moll Flanders, F.oxana, Colonel Jacque , Captain

Singleton, and many other of his rogues during some parts of their

careers. In the "Tour" (i,109), Jefoe says of a certain place,

*'We saw... every Man busie in the main Affair of Life, that is to say, getting Money..." In the same work he is constantly mention-

ing and comparing the prices of different comrroaities . Eot only had he been in a mercantile business himself, but he had written many pamphlets on the state of commerce. But quite common, also, among the rogues of Defoe, is the m.ention of gold watches; a famous scene in "Moll Flanders" is the one in which she bestows a gold watch on her son: "I did not, indeed," says she, "tell him I stele 1 it from a gentle-woman's side, at a meeting house in London."

Attention should be called to the fact that , according to the

"Memoirs", the sailors were rewarded for their honesty in returning the Earl's property to his lady: they were allowed to keep all the gold and silver. T?ith this should also be considered the statement in the succeeding paragraph concerning the sailors on board the Catherine; it will be remembered that they had seized an opportunity to recover control of their vessel after it had been captured by the Dutch, and had brought it back to the English fleet with some Dutch prisoners. All this is clearly from the

"Gazette". But the "Memoirs" give the additional touch that for their brave conduct "as they deserv'd, they were well rewarded,"

1 Vol. ii, (Maynadier edition, pp. 209, 210).

-68-

Twice on the same page, the author has rounded out a borrowed nar-

rative with the realistic detail that the protagonists were rewarded for their conduct, i^o effort has been made to find parallel

instances in acknov/ledged works of Defoe, though unquestionably- many of them might easily be found. One instance from the "Tour"

(iii,115) may, however, be cited. It v^as during the great storm of November 27th, 1703, (and, indeed, Defoe had first related the incident in his famous account of that storm, p. 196), that a ship laden with tin was swept from her moorings with only a m.an and two boys aboard; by the bold efforts of one of the boys, the vessel was finally guided into a cove where she sank. The three sailors, however, escaped, and the cargo was ultim.ately recovered.

In both accounts of the episode, Defoe mentions that the sailors were rewarded; the first version (f^ora the "Storm") ends with a bit of doggerel, "they were well gratified, and the Merchants well satisfied;" while the second (from the "Tour") closes with a postscript stating that the ov/nefs of the cargo "very well Keward - ed the three sailors, especially the lad that ran her into the pltce."

But these first pages of the "Memoirs" give not only a number of examples of Defoe's favorite ideas; they also abound in instances of his literary mannerisms. The fact is, that Defoe has left his signature on every page, and in nearly every paragraph and sentence in the "Memoirs". It should be remembered that while many of these mannerisms were doubtless used by other writers of that time, it would indeed be strange to find all of them in any

one other author; • especially in company with so many of Defoe's

-69- favorite ideas.

There are two formulas in the "Memoirs" with which incidents are, in general, introduced; one of these is the phrase, "I cannot

(or must not) omit here;" the other is, "I remember." The first, apparently, is used when the author is inserting an anecdote of his own in what he considers a fitting place for it; the second, when he is trying to give an air of genuineness to incidents which he is borrowing from written sources.

The anecdote of Sir iidward Spragge's pigeons begins with the

" phrase, "1^ cannot here omit one Thing ; four pages earlier (5), a story of a wounded man devoured by hogs aboard the Catherine is introduced similarly: "I_ must not omit one remarkable Occurrence."

Other instances follow: (109), "!_ cannot here omit one Singularity of Life;" (121), "I cannot here omit one very remarkable Instance

of ... Catholic Zeal;" (122), "Another remarkable Accident. . . I must recite ;" and (311), "!_ cannot here omit an accidental ConverationT

Defoe had used this same phrase repeatedly in the "Tour".

Three pages beyond the story of the swallows, but while still dealing with the region about Southwold, he relates the following cir-

cumstance (i,87): "!_ cannot omit, however little it may seem , that

...Suffolk is particularly famous for furnishing. .. London with

Turkeys. .. tho' this may be reckon' d a trifling Thing . . .yet . . . could not omit it. " Here we have Jefoe twice using the formula, and "I cannot omit," twice apologizing lest the matter seem, trifling, as the author of the- "i/Iemoirs" han done in the case of Spragge's

pigeons, other instances in the "Tour" e^re : (iii,62), "I cannot

" omit here a small Adventure;" (iii,93), One Thing . . . I cannot

-70-

omit;" (ill, 77), ''It cann ot pass Observation he re ; " and (iii,

» 78) , cannot omit a short Story he re

This method of introducing anecdotes x>efoe had used twenty 1 years earlier than the publication of the "Tour". In the "Storm", he says: (77), "Another Observation I_ cannot but make;" (199),

"And here I o'annot omit;" and (271), "One unhappy Accident I_ cannot omi^t.'' In "juncan Campbell", the phrase i;^ varied somewhat, the usual form being, "I must let the Reader know," or "ilow I must tell the Leader." Such expressions are of frequent occurrence there; two examples rrfr.y be found on page 124, and another on page

140.

Passing on to the second method of introducing incidents, it will be recalled that the casualty list in the "Memoirs" was given

"as I_ remember" it. Other instances follow: (30), "I remember the

Prince of Orange ... receiv' d a Shot through his Arm;" (31), "I_ remember the Dutch Troops did not all alike do their Duty;" (193),

"L re mem, be r '.ve were not marched very far;" (221), "^ remember one of those reverend old Men;" (2?5), "I remember upon some further

" ...Conversation;" and (314), I remember not to have seen any

Horses."

This sam.e phrase is sufficiently plentiful in the acknowledged writings of i^efoe. In "Duncan Campbell", we find: (69), "...1.

reme mber , ."hen he was about nine Years of Age ( that he did so and

so);" (106), "I remember to have read;" (211), "I remember , I writ down, ..the Moral Story;" (226), "I remember the Passage;"

(240), "I_ remember Mr. Dryden makes a very beautiful Observation;"

1 All references to the Storm are to the original edition.

" " .

-71-

and {2Q?.), remember , one of the Ingredients was..." One ex-

ample from the "Tour" may he cited (i,131), remember some Years

. a Brewer. .

The author of the "Memoirs" has a trite manner of introducing

quotations; such as, "VJhat Sir Walter Ealeigh finely calls,"

"the immortal Shakespeare," ani "the excellent Eudibras." Mr. 1 Doble has called attention to this, and has cited a number of ex-

amples of the use of that manner by oefoe. From "Duncan Campbell**

I have selected the fev7 instances '.which follow. (112), "The

famous Torquatas Tasso ... scarce inferior to the immortal Virgil;"

" (193), The learned Camerarius;" and (198), "...so many Learned. .

and i'ioble Authors."

Attention has been called to the expression at the end of the

pigeon anecdote in the "Memoirs" (10): "What Sort of Instinct this

could proceed from, I leave to the Curious ; " and to the correspond-

ing one at the end of the swallow anecdote in Jefoe's "Tour": "How

. those Creatures know. ,. this. . .we_ must Ijeave to the Natura l ists

Similar expressions appear elsewhere in the "Memoirs", and are not uncommon in other writings of Defoe. On page 235 of the "Memoirs" we find this remark: "...whether weary with gorging, or over-

thirsty with devouring, I le ave to Philosophers. " Similarly, in

the "Tour" {i,119), Defoe has written: "...whether it be that the

Country has so little worth speaking of... or that the Town has so much...I_ leave t_q others . " In "Duncan Campbell", likewise, he

saya: (78), "I_ shall leave them to the Labyrinth of their own wild

Opinions;" and (E42), "^ leav e that . . . to vyriters of Fable and

Academy , vol. 43 (1893), p. 439.

-72-

Eomance."

The last of these expressions v/hich shall be consilered here, is the use of the phrase "admiring at" to mean "wondering at".

The author of the "Memoirs" speaks of some persons "admiring at" the manner in which Sir Edward's pigeons returned aboard the Lon -

don , Two similar uses of the expression have been selected from a casual glancing through "Duncan Campbell"; (61), "Tq may the less admire at the Wonder;" and (98), "... she ... sung so melodiously...

that her Musick-Master . . .admir' d at it."

The fact is thaU Defoe, as a prolific journalist, had command of such a large number of words and phrases affected b^ the writers of his day that our search for evidences of his pen in the matter of diction resolves itself to some extent into an effort to show that the "Memoirs" exhibit a sufficiently large proportion of those words and expressions to justify us in considering him as the au-

thor .

Passing from the mannerisms and phraseology to the vocabulary of the "Memoirs", we discover a number of words which, if not dis- tinctive of Defoe, occur frequently enough in his works, to aid in confirming the evidence for his authorship already produced.

Consiaer the adjective "prodigious" used on page 10 of the "Mem- oirs"; on page 323, the author speaks of a "prodigious Pile"; and on page 345, of a "prodigious Fish". "Prodigious" is one of Defoe's favorite adjectives. In "ijuncan Campbell" he writes (227) of

"prodigious Acts"; and in the "Storm" (38), of a "prodigious Tide", and (240), of a "prodigious iloise". In the "Tour", he uses the adverb "prodigiously". There, also, he speaks of a "prodigious

-73-

Multituile of S'Arallows", as we have seen in the anecdote of the

Solebay swallows.

At the close of the episode, the "Memoirs" mention that the king found himself under the necessity of "clapping up" a speedy peace with Holland, "Clapping up" is striking enough; in "Duncan

Campbell" Defoe has a like expression (210), where he asks when we shall see the hatspy day in which old heads shall "be clapp'd" on 1 young shoulders.

Stronger or more varied evidence that Defoe was the author of the first episode of these spurious memoirs could hardly be hoped for in a ten page narrative. That he could have written them there can be no question. The paragraph quoted from the "Tour" makes clear that he had a broad general knowledge of the battle of

Solebay; while other instances have lemonst rated that he possessed the information and interests necessary for writing the portions

supplementing the materials borrowed from the "Gazette" , A study of the episode, moreover, reveals that its author and Defoe have similar associations of ideas; that they have similar favorite ideas; and that they have a great deal in common in the matter of diction.

But, after all, the study has covered less than one thirty-

1 Other words to be found in these f j rst few pages of the MsiS- oirs that are of freouent occurrence in Defoe's works are: 1. "iJobility and Gentry" (p.l); this phrase appears some half- dozen times in the Tour ( i ,90 ; ii , 55 ,107 ; ii i ,14) 2. "naturalists" {p.9); quoted in Defoe's anecdote of the swal- lowsin the Tour . Mr. Doble ( Academy, vol. 43, 1893, p. 439) has pointed out the following other instances of its use by Defoe:

Storm ( 12) , History cf the Devil ( 238) , F.obinson Crusoe , ( i ,223) ,

F.oxana (3ohn,195) , anX Lee's De foe ( ii ,286 ) . Only two instances 0? its use are found in the writings of Swift.

-74-

fifth of the whole work, and there is no need to push conclusions

too far at this point. All that is necessary is to make certain

that, in the absence of any other likely claimant for the author-

ship, Defoe could have been the author. Carleton, we have seen, affords no basis for supposing- that he produced such a work of fiction; and Mr. Doble has made it clear that Dean Swift could not have written it. iio other possibilities have been very seriously proposed. Considering that Defoe has produced a number of similar works which long passed for authentic memoirs; that he was in

London and actively engaged in writing in 17£8; and that every clue discoverable in this first episode points to him, we must be content for the present with the conclusion that, whatever may be the case in later portions of the work, this first episode of the

"Memoirs of Captain Carleton" contains a minimum of basis in Carle- ton's acvities, that it is almost wholly a fabrication, and that its author was probably Daniel Defoe.

At the outset of this investigation we were confronted with a work which purported to be a genuine memoir but which was known to contain passages of a fictitious nature. Considerable internal evidence, moreover, had been produced which seemed to indicate that

Defoe had the principal share in its composition. As to that, however, the majority of investigators had remained unconvinced, and some had even reasserted a belief that the "lAemoirs" are genuine. But even those who insisted most strenuously that they fare fraudulent have conceded that their author had before him some manuscript or notes written or dictated b^' Carleton. Lock- hart's grudging admission that uefoe may h?. ve been their author

-75-

Is accompanied by the assertion that "he no doubt had before him the rude journal of some officer who fought and bled in the cam- 1 paigns described 'vith such an inimitable air of truth.'' Likewise,

Mr. Doble , who had no doubt that Carleton was only a cloak for

Defoe, was eaually certain that "Defoe, after his manner, worked up Carleton' s anecdotes and reminiscences Into literary shape."

In accord with this opinion is that of Colonel Parnell, who argued so tenaciously that Swift rather than ijefoe was the fabricator of the 7/ork ascribed to Carleton; Parnell' s conclusion was that Carle- ton had personally interviewed Dean Swift and had furnished him 3 with data. A more conservative attitude is that of Professor 4 Trent; while thoroughly convinced of "Defoe's connection with the book in some capacity or other", he believes that "we cannot now determine with any certainty" whether Defoe "edited with considerable rewriting a manuscript written "by Carleton himself, or by

some one in jublin acting under Carleton' s direction. . .whether he merely utilized Carleton' s memoranda and conversations, or whether he made up the entire book on his knowledge of the events of the period and on a few hints with regard to Carleton' s personality and career derived from some unknown source."

With matters in this state, the first episode, a ten page narrative which has hjtherto received little attention, has been

Life of Scott , vol.iii, (ed. 1902, p. 74). 2

Academy , vol. 43 (1893), p. 483. 3

iilnglish Historical r.eview , vol. vi (1891), p. 97ff. 4

Daniel Defoe , pp. 262-4.

-76-

subjected to a critical examination, the result of 7;hich has been to sho'.c that by far the greater portion of that narrative was plagiarize! from the "London Gazette"; ana that the rest is partly truthful and partly fictitious embroiierings to the plagiarized materials. One of the main incidents, indeed, proves to be wholly, and probably intentionally, untruthful. It has, moreover, been established almost beyond question that Carleton could not have composed this portion of the narrative, ana. considerable evidence

has been presented to settle the authorship upon Defoe .

But the most significant fact discovered, perhaps, has to do with the relation of Carleton' s personal activity to this part of the narrative which he is claimed to have written. We have seen that even those who deny the authenticity of the "Memoirs" were of the opinion that Carleton had contributed data which was of use in their composition. It appears extremely unlikely, however, that any considerable amount of such data was at hand during the writing of this episode. At the most, the author could have known only the questionable fact that Carleton was with Spragge in the battle of Solebay and that he left the fleet not long afterward; and he probably knew even less; perhaps only that at some time in his 1 youth Carleton had served under Spragge.

1 It is ray intention to continue, in the near future, this study of the Carleton Memoirs , and to subject as great a portion of them as is practicable to a similar scrutiny.

BIBLIOGEAPKY

Academy, 1888, 1889, 1893.

Athenaeum, 1895. 1889, 1903, 1914.

Baker, E.A. , Guide to the Best Fiction in English, London, 1913.

Barring-ton, Michael, Grahar.e of Clave rhouse, London, 1911.

Bernbaum, Ernest, The ILary Carleton Narratives, Cambridge (Mass.), 1914. Blbliotheca Smithiana, seu Catalogus Librorum Ij. Josephi Smithii Anglii, Venetiis, 1755, Boswell, James, Life of Samuel Johnson, Oxford, v. 4, 1887.

Boyer, Abel, History of King William III, London, v.l, 1702.

Burton, John Hill, History of the Beign of Queen Anne, Edinburgh, v.E, 1880. Calendar of State Papers, dom. ser.. May 18 to Sept. 30, 1672, London, 1899. Cambridge History of English Literature, Cambridge, v. 9, 1913.

Cambridge Modern History, x.ev7 York and London, v. 5, 1909.

Carleton, Percival A., Memorials of the Carleton Family, London, 1869.

Craik, G.L. , Compendium History of English Literature and of the English Language from the Herman Conquest, Hew York, v. 2, 1866. Dartmouth Manuscripts (Historical Manuscripts Commission, Fif- teenth Eeport, Appendix, Part I), London, v. 3, 1897. Defoe, Daniel, Duncan Campbell, London, 1720. Moll Flanders, Hew York and London, v. 2, 1903. F.obinson Crusoe, London, v.l, 1899. Storm, London, 1704. Tour, London, v.l, 1724. Dictionary of national Biography, Hew York, vols. 3 and 8, 1908.

English Historical Eeview, 1891.

Ssdaile , Arundell , List of English Tales and Prose Komances Printed before 1740, London, 1912. Fortescue, J.??., History of the British Army, London, v.l, 1899.

Kennett, White, Complete History of England, London, v. 3, 1706.

Lee, William, Life and Hewly Discovered Writings of Daniel Defoe, London, v.l, 1869.

-78-

Lockhart, John Gibson, Life of Sir l!7alter Scott, iiidinburgh, v. 3, 1902. London Gazette, 1672.

Lowndes, T.T., Bibliographers Manual, London, v.l, 1857,

Marvell, Andrew, Works, London, v. 4, 1875.

Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. , vols. 6 and 7; 3rd ser. , v. 6.

Parker, Samuel, History of his own Tines, London, 1727.

Political History of England (Hunt and Poole, Editors), London, V.9, 1906. Post Boy, 1728.

Bice-Oxley, Leonard, Memoirs as a Source of English History (The Stanhope Essay, 1914), Oxford, 1914. Stanhope, Philip Henry, 5th Earl, History of England comprising the Keign of Queen Anne, London, v.l, 1872. Stanhope, Philip Henry, 5th Earl, History of the War of Succession in Spain, London, 1832. Stebbing, William, Peterborough, London, 1890.

Stephen, Sir Leslie, Hours in a Library, London, v.l, 1907.

Trent, TT.P. , Daniel Defoe, Indianapolis, 1916.

Wilson, Walter, Memoirs of the Life and Times of Daniel Defoe, London, v. 3, 1830. Wyon, F.rJ., History of Great Britain during the l.eign of Queen Anne, London, v.l, 1876.

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA

0112 086833701